Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:WikiProject reform User-warning templates strawpoll Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Credentials Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Draft unified account policy Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Shoes

This is a badly written page for a song (not a single) on one album by one artist. Not notable enough. Philip Stevens 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not worth it's own article. Mrjeff 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. If so, then you might as well take time to delete all the other articles dedicated to individual songs. Anthony Rupert 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Individual songs are notable if they were released as singles. Punkmorten 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but Wikify - If you look at the rest of the songs on the album (see Piece by Piece (album), they are well written... this just needs to be written to the same standard as the remaining songs. Jazznutuva 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Completely fails Wikipedia:Notability (songs) and is an uninformative stub that is unlikely to be expanded. If it fails the notability guidelines for songs, it has to be deleted. Furthermore, a song being a single is NOT enough to justify keeping an article. In response to Anthony; the fact that other articles dedicated to individual songs exist has no bearing on this particular afd; a lot of those articles need to be deleted as well and will be in time, some do deserve to stay because they pass the notability guidelines. --The Way 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:The Way. Punkmorten 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, eight of her other songs have pages, in fact "Nine Million Bicycles" is a WP:Good article. If those songs can have pages why can't this one? Hera1187 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN. Also, who cares if other songs have articles? Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. /Blaxthos 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Any information needed should be in the album page. Unless this was a charting single, which it isn't, then it should be deleted. - hahnch e n 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable song, only singles that have charted should have articles. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "Blue Shoes" is a good but non-notable album track, and there's no useful content in this article that could be merged. The existence of other articles on songs recorded by Melua isn't really relevant here, because the songs a) were released as singles, which makes them at least somewhat notable, and/or b) they are already-famous songs that Melua has covered. Another issue is that the Piece by Piece (album) article is rather short as it is right now, which is rather odd given that we have five articles on the singles. I personally would rather have efforts put on expanding album articles to a decent size rather than spreading information about the songs across several separate articles. Extraordinary Machine 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, charted single should be minimum qualification. Deizio talk 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are a number of artists that have articles for non-single songs, such as The Beatles and The Smashing Pumpkins. Danny Lilithborne 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. Anthony Rupert 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd be leery of any rationale implying that a relatively new act has notability comparable to the musical act that sold more records, tapes, and CDs than any other in recorded history. B.Wind 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article fails to assert notability under any of the (proposed) criteria at WP:SINGLE. —ShadowHalo 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete , not notable -- Steve Hart 11:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep as rewritten under Java Classloader —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:26Z

[edit] JAR hell

Prodded twice, once due to context and the other due to being a non-notable, somewhat unencyclopedic and unreferenced. Crufty. MER-C 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article has been completely rewritten (and retitled) by Petri Krohn since the debate started. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It seems to be a neologism, and somewhat based on Dependency hell. --Dennisthe2 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete it seems a very localised term, as MER-C said; "Crufty". James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete pretty much seems like non-notable neologism and cruft.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete — as neologism. --S onicChao ^talk 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete — ---Green-Dragon 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Article was poorly written and needs copy-edit (I did some) and wikifing. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with it. Java is a new concept, so anything related to it can be labeled a neologism. The problem presented is real and the article factual. In fact I received a US patent for a solution to the problem some 5 or 6 years ago. It could in fact be used as one of the references. (I must put a link to the patent on my user page if I can find it :-) Anyway, please check the article again, it looks much better now. -- Petri Krohn 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In theory this material could be merged to some other article. We are however still missing such basic Java articles as Java class and classloader. --Petri Krohn 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PP.S. I did some more editing: I wikilinked the some ten instances of Classloader and Class loader in Wikipedia, and redirected them to JAR hell. I know that JAR hell is not the same as a class loader, but it is a feature of class loaders. If JAR hell did not deserve its own article, it could be integrated to Classloader. (Or the present article could be expanded and renamed "Classloader".) -- Petri Krohn 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PPP.S. We also have an article on DLL hell. --Petri Krohn 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ...and Extension conflict --Petri Krohn 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep if able to be verified and wikiifed per above point Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Are we going to have an article for every programming language about this sort of problem? This concept should be a subsection of Dependency hell, as per Dennisthe2, or something similar. DLL hell probably should be rolled into that main article, too; it actually has fewer Google hits than JAR hell. What worries me the most is that all the keep votes came after a plea by a decidedly biased editor (who has a personal, emotional stake in the notability of the topic). Wikilinks don't make it notable -- and may just make a bigger mess to clean up. If Classloader deserves an article, by all means, contribute one. -- PatrickFisher 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"dll hell" 258,00 hits. "jar hell" 945 hits. I think this shoul be deleted, but DLL hell I think might be popular enough for it's own article. Mrjeff 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NEO, cruft. Ter e nc e Ong 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge into another article, I don't believe there is anything special about "JAR hell" over any other classpath issues (which can be quite annoying). Mrjeff 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is both a neologism and OR. Obina 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mostly as WP:OR. AubreyEllenShomo 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect any verifiable info to dependency hell --Karnesky 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Classloader - I was bold, and rewrote and moved the article. There was not much that could go to the generic dependency hell article. More important, there was no Classloader article and most of the material was relevant there. -- Petri Krohn 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The rewritten form is much better and isn't deletable at all. MER-C 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in rewritten form; much better, thank you. Java classloader is clearly a notable topic to be discussed in Wikipedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP but rewrite to higher quality. If you are going to delete this, delete "DLL Hell" too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.110.42 (talk • contribs).
- Comment - if you think it should be deleted, log in and put it on AFD. Just don't do so to prove a point - people around here don't much like that. --Dennisthe2 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, not too bad now, willing to give it some time -- Steve Hart 11:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of English cricket clubs in lieu of deletion —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:33Z

[edit] Brockley CC

Non-noteable cricket team. A Google search for "Brockley CC" provides 60 results minus wikimirrors. A Google search for "Brockley Cricket Club" shows 100 minus wikimirrors. According to the article, they play in "Division 2 of the Marshall Hatchick Two Counties league." Not quite enough for inclusion. Consequentially 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a lot of teams listed on the article List of English cricket clubs, not convinced that they all need or warrant separate articles (or, more to the case, that such articles would be maintained). I note that there are over 3,500 clubs in over 200 leagues known by the ECB [1]. If we are not to have articles on all of these clubs (are these likely to be maintained?), I would suggest limiting it to those withing the ECB's official Premier Leagues (e.g. the Shepherd Neame Essex Cricket League) Average Earthman 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete — The amount of Google hits alone are enough to delete this one. --S onicChao ^talk 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's been around since 1953 and seems to have a well established organization. It's not the Ashes, but yes, it is notable. Mets 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete under A7, non-notable groups of people. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Brockley CC are included in the Brockley, Suffolk article and a link to the cricket club's web site is provided there. The rest of this article is merely a regurgitation of the club's statistics. This information is hardly encyclopedic and anyone interested can simply refer to the club's web site. Although I was happy to wikify this page into listcruft, I believe that it would be better to expand upon the Brockley, Suffolk article. I therefore vote to delete it. Dingopup 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Move and Redirect to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. Nishkid 64 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Litvinenko assassination

Fork of Alexander Litvinenko. An article about Litvinenko's death would be reasonable, but should not be called "assassination" based on what has currently been proved. (It certainly seems likely to be accurate, but that's not good enough. Trovatore 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. Currently, it' useless. --Attilios 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is not a fork, but a split of a long and groving article. See Anna Politkovskaya and Anna Politkovskaya assassination. --Petri Krohn 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually I seem to have caught it between edits. When I first saw it it looked almost identical to Alexander Litvinenko. If I had seen it as it currently stands I would probably not have nominated it, but would simply have moved it to a more neutral name, such as Death of Alexander Litvinenko. --Trovatore 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would Alexander Litvinenko poisoning be OK? -- Petri Krohn 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Death of Alexander Litvinenko will not do, as there may be other victims, including Mario Scaramella. --Petri Krohn 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article is well-sourced and certainly importannt. If there is a disagreement about the title, then it can be moved but that's certainly no ground for deletion. TSO1D 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename: It is by no means clear if Litvinenko was assassinated yet, but it's clear he was poisoned. Once the UK Police investigation is complete, perhaps it could be changed again, but for now Alexander Litvinenko poisoning is fine. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that move. TSO1D 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rename/move too. --Ineffable3000 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved -- Petri Krohn 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was move to the Wikipedia: namespace. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiBrowse

non notable softwares.--Xpwne 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep, this is an active wikiproject. Note, the nominator has an edit history dedicated to the deletion of this and one other article - and nothing more. --Dennisthe2 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep The reason given for deletion is not true. TSO1D 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep Per above. Bea rly 541 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to projectspace. This kind of thing does not belong in the mainspace. This application fails WP:SOFTWARE beyond question, so it should certainly not have an article. While I recognize it as an active WikiProject--it's just that, a WikiProject. WikiProjects do not have a place in the mainspace. Move it to Wikipedia:WikiBrowse. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:WikiBrowse per AmiDaniel. -AMK152 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:WikiBrowse per AmiDaniel. Obvious. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to project namespace. MER-C 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move or Keep per all the above points. Sharkface217 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move per AmiDaniel. ♠PMC♠ 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete: Has the author of the software expressed an interest in maintaining the WikiProject page? I'll assume no for now, unless something changes my mind. If page is not maintained, I have a strong inkling that the page will go into disarray and disuse. A WikiProject needs members to keep it going. Do we have that right now? Until I see this, delete. Copysan 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per "no self-references". Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd go with "keep and clean up", for that. --Dennisthe2 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, that in combination with its being a non-notable project. I guess my point is that its being related to Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to project space as Wikipedia:WikiBrowse, more suitable for project space. This is a WikiProject, therefore... Ter e nc e Ong 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to project space Wikipedia:WikiBrowse.--John Lake 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move per AmiDaniel and others.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move per AmiDaniel. Yes, it is rather obvious. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move per AmiDaniel and everyone else. Hagerman^(talk) 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to Project: namespace, delete redirect. Not notable enough as an article topic, I guess, but it's a prime candidate for material that's perfectly all right for Project: space. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiturfing

non notable --Xpwne 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep, on account that the nominator has put a wikiproject - WikiBrowse, specifically - on the AfD block, and this and that constitutes their sole contributions to Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment - corrected link to the correct project name. --Dennisthe2 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain, changed vote. Point taken about Xpwne's edit history. I'll let the AFD take its course. --Dennisthe2 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Regardless of the nominee's lack of activity, the term really appears to be non-notable. TSO1D 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete With 12 unique Google hits (and even less if we don't count Wikipedia and mirrors), this barely even counts as a protologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiturfing. -- Petri Krohn 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move per Petri Krohn. Definitely nn protologism inappropriate for articlespace, and a violation of WP:ASR, but actually appropriate for internal usage. Actually a good description for a lot of stuff that comes through AFD. Fan-1967 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This term isnt even used INSIDE the wikipedia community, why does it deserve a mention in the Wikipedia: space? Copysan 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism, not even used in Wikipedia...SkierRMH,06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Copysan and SkierRMH. It is simply another way of saying that non-notable companies write advertisements on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism and even if it did exist, I'd prefer a redirect to astroturfing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, never heard of it. Ter e nc e Ong 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NEO Charlie 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's too new, just internal slang. -- Stbalbach 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete citation to a web forum, especially that particular web forum, does not pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Hagerman^(talk) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article is only on here to create the impression that it has gained social clout. --JimmyTheWig 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
move: to Wikipedia:Wikiturfing. Ombudsman 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to project space if anyone cares, otherwise delete as a self-referential neologism. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm impressed. You have thounsands of completely irrelevant lemmata (which is not the worst thing on Wikipedia, much worse is the total nonsense purported in popular lemmata), but you cannot bear this simple fact of life. Should I tell the Wikitruth, when this is gonna be deleted? Fossa 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricky Graham

Non-notable musician. None of the listed labels seem particularly notable, fails WP:MUSIC. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- non notable musician. Self promotion. Bea rly 541 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, nn. --MasterA113 03:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep He is somewhat notable, as he is a signed musician. Remember, just because he's not a huge star like Bob Dylan doesn't mean he isn't notable. Sharkface217 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. shotwell 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN musician, don't believe getting signed to any label brings notariety. SkierRMH,06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. TSO1D 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutely fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. May well become notable before long if the claims of the article are correct, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Xtifr _tälk 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Renata 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Kimbly

Article makes no assertions to the comic's notability beyond being popular on Livejournal. As such, it fails WP:WEB. There're about 800 google hits for "Silent Kimbly" webcomic, none of which would suggest notability that isn't contained in the article. Unless someone can provide further notability, delete. Brad Beattie (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. wtfunkymonkey 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Would be a speedy if it weren't for the book. MER-C 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, as you can find Google hits for this and it is a widely read webcomic. Sharkface217 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Google hits aren't reliable sources. Please cite a third-party reliable source to indicate something about this webcomic. ColourBurst 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything on the internet gets some google hits, but that doesn't mean everything can have an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. shotwell 05:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete don't see notability; book article w/ this inclued? SkierRMH,06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It's a prominent comic. Perhaps an addition to WikiProject Webcomics would be appropriate? That could make it better. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - An alexa rank in the millions and a self published book don't make it notable. This is nowhere near as prominent or notable than other deleted websites such as General Mayhem and Soompi. - hahnch e n 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet our content policies starting with no verifiable information from third-party reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ReyBrujo. MER-C 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wire sculpture

Violates WP:NOT and is also a copyvio, although the author claims to be the person who originally wrote the text. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welding helmet

Non-notable type of helmet. Salad Days 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: This user created Beekeeping_helmet for some reason, perhapse related to this AFD. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It is fairly unique as helmets go: most of them are designed to prevent blunt-force trauma (e.g. a football helmet) or keep an airtight seal around the head (e.g. diving helmet). Welding helmets keep too much light from rendering the user blind, and protect from errant sparks. A lot of material is available on them (the lens in particular) so sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Article needs expanded to be sure, but this is the kind of topic we really do need more articles on in Wikipedia. Puppy Mill 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems obvious to me. Article needs expanded, that's all. Wavy G 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Andrew. hateless 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep — per Andrew Lenahan. --S onicChao ^talk 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep; Andrew's right; there's alot of material out there for this topic. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, entirely valid article. I actually read the title as "wedding helmet"... JIP | Talk 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, needs a lot more material, needs big time expansion.SkierRMH,06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep since it is in-fact a notable helmet. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, well-written, referenced article, part of the metalworking template. --Canley 08:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, nominator didn't say why they believed it to be non-notable, and there seems ample evidence to suggest they were wrong in their assertion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per above, and get started on [[wedding helmet]] too. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities in the rust belt

Pointless list of declining cities. The list doesn't include half of the rust belt cites, and the article would be huge if they were all included. It could hypothetically be merged to Rust Belt, but it really should be deleted outright. BarryBonds100 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Useful. Puppy Mill 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not all of these cities verifiably identify with the Rust Belt- particularly around the border. If anything, this list would be better off as a category where appropriate. --Wafulz 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above point (useful). Sharkface217 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: "Useful" has never been really a valid criteria for keeping, though it may contribute, many things in wp:not are useful as well... Wintermut3 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- What part of WP:NOT do you think applies here? The list is well-defined, and the concept is very well known, so "indiscriminate" simply doesnt apply. ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This material is already covered more than adequately by Rust Belt. Allon Fambrizzi 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
Keep because the Rustbelt is a notable and verifiable concept. A list of cities that lie within the metaphorical area called the "Rustbelt" sounds very reasonable to me. ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep provides an easier way to find cities in the rust belt because it is a list. Rhino131 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Would this not work better as a category then? --Wafulz 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This material is already covered more than adequately by Rust Belt.--SethTisue 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's definitly not in Rust Belt. One is a list of cities in the rust belt and one is an article on what the rust belt is. Are you trying to propose a merge? ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete If this list were complete, it would be ridiculously huge. As it's used in Rust Belt, it's probably best to have a category made for those cities. Also, it seems the list is at odds with the geographic definition of Rust Belt, as there are cities listed that are most certainly not in the belt. --Sable232 15:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]
Delete This would be better done as a category, applied to cities as needed. /Blaxthos 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Categorize. Although it may be somewhat useful as it is, if it was a category it would more helpful. 11kowrom 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Despite being incomplete, the list is useful and verifyable. The rustbelt is a notable concept. AubreyEllenShomo 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I think a category for this is better, since its very hard to compile such a long list of cities. A couple of such lists need to go, though I have a liking for lists more than categories. Ter e nc e Ong 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A category gets the job done easier. My question is, the Rust Belt article doesn't define Missouri or Minnesota as Rust Belt states, yet some of their cities are included. Should the article be kept, I suggest this discrepancy be fixed. SliceNYC 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, just decide which are the 5 or 6 major Rust Belt cities and list them or mention them in the Rust Belt article. People will inevitable try to add more, but rv them when they do otherwise someone will try to split out another article exactly like this and we'll all meet back here in 9 months and do this all over again. Recury 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A category would be helpful though. Borjon22 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't think there's consensus on what exactly geographically the "rust belt" is. Residents of some of these municipalities might be surprised to find their location included (Thunder Bay, Ontario?). Delete for list inclusion being far too arbitrary. --Oakshade 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete the article and turn into a category (for those cities which are verifiably in the rust belt. --G Rutter 11:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasmagnetic Levitation

Purported phenomenon seems to be made up by one company (HoverTech) which seems to produce little more than vaporware/pseudoscience and has no notable refrences outside of said company and no existence in the scientific literature. Deglr6328 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - only 42 non-wiki ghits. I also searched the preprints on arxiv.org and found zilch. Utterly fails WP:V. MER-C 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep use usefulness. Sharkface217 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- What on earth does "use usefulness" mean?--Deglr6328 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm well that's an argument I hadn't considered... hmmm... I'm having a hard time coming up with a rebuttal to that one... :p Herostratus 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - It's called WP:ILIKEIT. ColourBurst 05:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I suspect that this is a hoax, and that their website is also a hoax. Not only are they going to turn air into plasma - which is, basically, material so hot that individual atoms come apart - using ultraviolet radiation (whoooo!), but they are working on an airship that is lighter than air because it contains a vacuum. I just... no. Make them go away, please. Herostratus 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete looks like hoax, and links to site are all pretty questionable. SkierRMH,06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX unless someone can come up with some credible evidence to the contrary. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete with a laser powered by cold fusion. NawlinWiki 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong, Fast Delete - WP:HOAX (it's a scam! X-Ray goggles from the back of scouting magazines, etc.) /Blaxthos 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete LOL TSO1D 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullycide

an original essay about a nonnotable neologism from one book.`'mikkanarxi 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it contains plenty of sources to be able to stand alone --RedPoptarts 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism, 948 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Odd. I get 9,570 google hits using your link, MER-C. Can you double check your google results? Anyone else see different results? AubreyEllenShomo 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per notability, sources. Sharkface217 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Such as? MER-C 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - obvously just made up.--Deglr6328 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Danny Lilithborne 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Classic OR: someone invents a concept and then makes an argument for its cultural impact. Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
Delete The article itself says its a neologism. Gelston 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Ter e nc e Ong 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Sable232 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep 18700 Google hits, a book with the term in the title, and several independent references cited. Hardly "original research" or "obviously just made up." Most words in the English language were neologisms at one time or another. This one has been in use for 5 years per the references. Bullying is a common cause for both suicides by students and for revenge shootings in schools. Either type of death is the subject of the article. Edison 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being in book title does not mean widespread acceptance. Journalists coin catch phrases all the time. `'mikkanarxi 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
weak delete - neologism, not much evidence of notability outside of the book that invented it. --TexasDex 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's verifiable, and I count 9,570 non-wiki google hits. AubreyEllenShomo 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - considered a valid term in pscyhology by the pscyhology Wiki project. Endless blue 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I believe the topic is notable and sources can be provided. TSO1D 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Nom statement doesn't appear to hold up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Note WP:NEO. The subject is verifiable, but does it really have a place here? -158.123.138.50 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete essay, neologism. Anomo 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep requires cleanup.SYSS Mouse 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Only about 470 unique ghits, and the usage of the term is quite confused; the most common usage seems to be death due to bullying, but the book uses it differently. Some of the cited references don't even use the term. I suspect this material is covered better elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Brianyoumans 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hovertech

Non-notable "company" which seems to produce little more than vaporware, pseudoscience and digg posts. If things like blacklightpower dont have pages this definitely shouldn't either. Deglr6328 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Perhaps we could merge the two nominations? MER-C 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above point. Sharkface217 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I read this article yesterday actually, and considered nominating it for deletion. Not really notable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per the Plasmagnetic Levitation... SkierRMH,06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete seems more like an advertisement for the company more than anything. Jazznutuva 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Plasmagnetic whatchamacallit discussion. NawlinWiki 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above FirefoxMan 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncle G. is commended for saving another entry from deletion. Keep up the good work. El_C 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-line

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already transwikied. De-prodded with comment "article can be expanded beyond dicdef." Can it? (No opinion yet, let's see what folks can come up with) Pan Dan 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

delete as per nom. I can't imagine a useful entry for this. What's there is a dictionary entry, which is all the term really needs, surely, and Wikipedia isn't the place for it.Mister Pe 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete because wp is not a dictionary, I would suggest transwiki-ing to wikitionary but it's been done so delete it! James086^{Talk | Contribs} 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, by all means, expand if you can, but I think it's not possible to get past dicdef status with this. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is possible. Rename to on-line and off-line, per the introduction of the article. Keep. Uncle G 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wow. Thanks Uncle G for a beautifully written and sourced (and, to me, interesting) article. Yet another topic many of us (including me) didn't think an encyclopedia article could be written about, until you got to work! Pan Dan 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment We now have the mind-boggling space-time twisting paradox that, theoretically, Online could be kept but Off-line deleted, or vice versa, yet they're the same article. Ahhhhhhhh! Because I do not want the universe to come to an end (yet), and because Uncle G's rewrite is a completely different article from either of its parents, I suggest speedy close of both of these AfD discussions. Pan Dan 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per above. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the article as revised and moved by Uncle G. In addition, I have two further recommendations, made below. AubreyEllenShomo 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Disregard delete votes above the hr line, as they were before the rewrites and may no longer apply. AubreyEllenShomo 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. On-line and Online to On-line and off-line in the related Afd. AubreyEllenShomo 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect — The term is too peopular to delete. Zntrip 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of redheads

Someone better have a good explanation to why this has existed for over 2 years on Wikipedia. Why are we listing people by hair colour? What about a list of people with black hair which would encompass pretty much everyone of african and asian descent? There seem to be quite a few useless people lists on Wikipedia, but this one is probably shouting out the loudest to be deleted. - hahnch e n 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --S onicChao ^talk 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, redheads are rare. -- Petri Krohn 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Yes, redheads are far more rare than people with any other hair color. I do, however, think that we should remove some of the redlinks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not rare enough to justify a listing like this. 23skidoo 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete red heads aren't rare enough that there should be list of them. Besides, why should there be a list of people by hair colour? It's too vague for a list, like List of men would be. List of people executed for homosexuality is fair enough because the list is specific and there is a reason for having it (i.e. someone researching the persecution of homosexuals) but I can see no reason for this list of redheads. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This does not fall under any listed criteria of "not collection". You should provide more reasoning.Valters 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a rather arbitrary way to list people. It also has zero references and I imagine it'd be challenging to find a credible source for a good number of these listings. shotwell 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Indescriminate collection... and most of my favourite redheads are missing (and what about dye jobs!)SkierRMH,06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think you read the article. The article discriminates on people who died their hair red. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
delete random body trait is always an arbitrary and indescriminate way to list people. --Jayron 32 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Even if there is some entertainment value in he idea that someone actually added it. At least I am smiling while shaking my head and voting delete. Dalf | Talk 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This information is interesting, and I just don't see how it hurts Wikipedia to have it. Valters 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This would imply we need a list of blondes, brunettes, and every color in the rainbow. Mets 08:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Gelston 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Listcruft is not a reasons. It can easily equal "I don't like it". Please give a little more than a one word reason.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment- Fine. Delete because:
    - The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
    - The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
    - The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
    - The underlying concept is non-notable
    - The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
    - The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. Reyk _YO! 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not likely to ever be comprehensive, verifiable, or useful. That, and I'm upset because I'm not on it. Jivlain 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Even with redheads being rare, this will never be comprehensive, nor useful. It would also set a very bad precedent for other hair colors. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gzkn 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Charlie 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no reason why Wikipedia should have this. Reading the keep arguments here doesn't help. Punkmorten 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an arbitrary and unwieldly list.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and for inherent NPOV. "Rare" in this case limits the number of members of the list to hundreds of thousands or millions, so within that size of a group, "notable" can't help but become a matter of editors' personal likes and dislikes. -Markeer 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've created several lists and worked on saving some. I despise "listcruft" as a reason to do anything. However in this case I don't see that this as a meaningful commonality. The only people I can think of who would be notable or defined by being redheaded is models and maybe entertainers. A list limited to one or both of those topics could work, but I feel that just a general list of redheads fails to be useful.--T. Anthony 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Recreate as a category. Just H 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - What would the category be called? Would it even be an allowable category? Like, wouldn't the people voting above have the same complaints if it was a category? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete stupid list. Pathlessdesert 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-encyclopedic indiscriminate collection of information that does not warrant an article or a category. Agent 86 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. johno95
Delete as per nom and others. Silly list. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's just not encyclopedic. TSO1D 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Completely arbitrary criteria. There is nothing in any way special about having red hair. Unencyclopedic to the point of asurdity. WJBscribe 13:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - While it looks like this is going to be deleted, I thought I would mention that while "living" redheads may not be as useful a list (though I wonder about that), a list of historical figures who had red hair would be. As would be the fictional characters. (When one writes a paper on the methodologies of authors in describing the "how" of character design, for example.) So if possible, I'd like to suggest that the list be split to List of fictional redheads and List of historical figures with red hair, and (if consensus suggests deletion) delete the rest. - jc37 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I agree and can help make these lists when the time comes. Assuming deletion succeeds, will the two lists (List of fictional redheads and List of historical figures with red hair) be split into "==Natural redheads==", "==Natural redheads who dyed their hair another color==", and "==Notable people who dyed their hair red=="? Or . . . will these lists have each of the subgroups combined? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While it may be useful to know about famous or historical people who dyed their hair red - along with the reasons why (such as Lucille Ball's, fame for it) - In looking over this discussion, I think that that would be what should be jettisoned. Especially since eventually it could list anyone, since these days, anyone can dye their hair. COnsider the title for such a page: List of people noted for red hair, who actually dyed it red. (Though I suppose there may be a way to shorten the title?) And also, since I think nearly everyone who would be on that list would be from at least as recent as the 20th century. So by default the two lists I suggested should be about "natural" redheads. As for the reason for separate lists from Red hair, is because it's a natural "split", due to length. It's just being done proactively. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of redheads is useful in the slightest, no matter how it's chopped up. - hahnch e n 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply Red hair is hardly a significant trait. I am not sure that any list where the primary criteria for inclusion is a random body trait is all that encyclopedic. Perhaps a SHORT subsection in the article titled Red hair is appropriate, but none of these makes the minimum requirements for a stand alone article. --Jayron 32 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Ok. Point taken. What about a category? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been already discussing on CfD the likelyhood that all characteristics of fictional characters (such as wealthy, lame, etc) should be lists, rather than categories. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No category. riana_dzasta 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 On-line and off-line. Renata 05:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already transwikied. De-prodded with comment "article can be expanded beyond dicdef." Can it? (No opinion yet, let's see what folks can come up with) Pan Dan 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

delete as per nom. and my comments for 'off-line'. This is a dictionary entry; what's it doing here!?Mister Pe 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as already transwickied, no need here. SkierRMH,06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the merger into Off-line (AfD discussion), Redirect to on-line and off-line. Uncle G 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your link appears dead.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - If you follow the link immediately preceding it, and read the AFD discussion linked to, you'll know why. Uncle G 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Redirect to On-line and off-line Wow. Thanks Uncle G for a beautifully written and sourced (and, to me, interesting) article. Yet another topic many of us (including me) didn't think an encyclopedia article could be written about, until Uncle G got to work! Pan Dan 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment We now have the mind-boggling space-time twisting paradox that, theoretically, Online could be kept but Off-line deleted, or vice versa, yet they're the same article. Ahhhhhhhh! Because I do not want the universe to come to an end (yet), and because Uncle G's rewrite is completely differently from either of its parent articles, I suggest speedy close of both of these AfD discussions. Pan Dan 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This article is a dictionary entry, but the related AfD for Off-line which now directs to On-line and off-line is for an article which now works out well. As such delete this article, but not the other AfD. Will post the same opinion there. AubreyEllenShomo 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to On-line and off-line per the related Afd. AubreyEllenShomo 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TSO1D 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect — The term is too peopular to delete. Zntrip 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Pan Dan et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Weather Almanac 2001

Group nomination of this page and its 2003 and 2005 equivalents. All three were created in May by PC3700DDR (talk • contribs) who has since been inactive. They remain sub-stubs with little or no content. There may eventually be some value in creating such articles (though I frankly doubt it) but since no one has made any significant edits in any of them over their six-month life here, it seems that they are bound to remain very low-quality stubs. I would have proded all of them, except one already was and the prod was removed by the creator (with no explanation of course). Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then prod it again and tell them, to provide a reason when removing that tag. Also, I suspect they either copied from a print source by the same name or that they are working from memory. Either would make for bad articles through copyright violation or verifiability issues respectively. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's no requirement to provide a reason; the page at WP:PROD says "should" provide a reason. And once de-prodded, you don't re-prod, you bring it to AfD. Which I assume to be the case here; therefore...Delete. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, virtually no content. Looks like the author had a grand plan to keep a diary of global weather, then got bored and never returned. --DeLarge 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Renata 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon Snap DS

If this game was by some reliable source to be currently in development, it would certainly be worth of an article. But as it stands, the only proof of this game's existence is a blurry picture that may be a hoax. See Talk:Pokemon Snap DS. Coffee 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Pending confirmation. Sharkface217 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. I can't find anything from a quick google search that verifies this game's existence. If it does appear, the article should be reinstated, but at the moment it looks like a hoax.Mister Pe 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - If it is real there is zero danger that it won't eventually be covered, I mean a video game and pokemon? How coudl we miss it? Dalf | Talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NOT a crystal ball. Darkspots 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete until more information concerning the game is released. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete pending confirmation. — Haeleth Talk 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. No way it will be missed if/when confirmed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax, no such game has been announced. TJ Spyke 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete can't find independent confirmation - and even if it were there, is this really utile/eneyclopedic? SkierRMH,08:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CatLinc

A trademark of a company named SP Controls. [2] Not a very notable technology; only [3] 12000 hits or so on Google, and most of those are in online catalogs. Mikeblas 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Google hits, notability. Sharkface217 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? Does it meet WP:CORP? MER-C 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet the notability criteria of WP:CORP --G Rutter 11:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper Joe

Unencyclopedic, unsourced, unsourceable. This is pure trivia about an exceedingly minor enemy (not even a character) appearing in a series of games, and it's sourced to direct observation of the games.

I prodded this, but it was apparently deprodded because I didn't put my prod reason in the edit summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got yer counter-proof right here, baby! Page 86 Japanese guidebook called Rockman & Rockman X Great Encyclopedia(JP ISBN4-06-259006-9). Inside, it has information about a great multitude of enemies from both games...including...the Sniper Joes! What do you have to say about that, Black Man? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per notability, article quality. Just because something isn't good now doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. Sharkface217 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is notable, where is it noted outside of primary sources or fansites? "Unsourceable" and "trivial" aren't problems that can be fixed with cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as, despite the fact that the Joe series are a minon enemy(..."exceedingly"? No, that would be one-shot enemies like Pierobots or Cutting Wheels.) in all of the games(and I do mean all of them. In the Classic series, in any case.), there are a great deal of them. An article about one single Joe isn't enough to bother with...but one large article about all the different types of Joes seems interesting. Now, on the other hand, the interest may be limited to only those who have played the games or plan to play the games, but still. You'd be surprised how many Rockman/Mega Man fans there are on Wikipedia.

On an unrelated note...yes. I deleted your previous "prod". Thank you for linking your nomination for deletion to an actual discussion forum, Black. I will try to find someone who has a copy of Rockman Perfect Memories or that Rockman and Rockman X guide for proof if that's all you require.

Oh, and if you're gonna recommend this for deletion, don't forget to set your magnum's sights on the Met page... ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep a signature enemy of the Mega Man series. Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. While this enemy doesn't complete satisfy my personal standards for notability, I recognize that this will probably be used as future precedent for every Mega Man enemy article (Met (Mega Man), etc), so I'm voting keep. Yes, it's not a valid reason. I don't care. --- RockMFR 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It needs a hell of a lot of cleaning up, but it's workable in its current state.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Primary sources (such as games) cannot reasonably be considered to fulfil verifiability requirements when using them to verify an article would require skill at playing the game in question, so the absence of reliable secondary sources is a serious issue here, and the mere fact that Mega Man fans consider this article interesting cannot be allowed to offset the requirement to meet Wikipedia's fundamental policies. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per notability, nice article. TestPilot 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but relist if not cited more thoroughly soon. -Ryanbomber 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep A thorough article on a main, recurring enemy in a major video game franchise. -Timzor 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio/self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Speegle

Appears to fail WP:BIO. James084 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G12, and so tagged. blatant copyvio. Ohconfucius 07:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Honey —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:40Z

[edit] Finland honey

Also Philippines honey

Article is unverified and from what I can see unverifiable. I did find one source that verifies the fact that honey is produced in Finland, but nothing that shows this is in anyway an important industry in Finland. It isn't a "branded" item like "Belgian Chocolate" and I fail to see the significance of it such that it supports an article. Delete.--Isotope23 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding Philippines honey to this AfD because it is essentially the same propostion. The article contains much that should be at Honey and doesn't show any importance for the Philippine honey industry or the honey as a "brand". Compare to the creator's other article Pitcairn Island honey which, while unsourced, is verifiable as type of honey "branded" as being from that region.--Isotope23 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge facts into honey. Just H 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge or Keep Merge per above point, Keep due to the fact that these articles can be improved. If it was about American honey, it would be kept. Sharkface217 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
weak keep, or failing that merge - coming from a country which has honey as a fairly major industry, I am aware that types of honey vary immensely from location to location. Given that, I can see the potential for the growth of these pages. Having said that, there is not that much here at present which could not be successfully merged with the main article. If kept, I could see a case for renaming (Finnish honey, etc). Grutness...wha? 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (slightly surprised that there is no New Zealand honey article)
- Is it a major industry in Finland? The reason I brought it to AfD was because I couldn't find any sources to suggest it was an important industry in Finland, as opposed to Bangladesh honey which I was going to AfD as well, but found several sources to suggest Honey is an important industry there. In fact the reason I didn't boldy merge this is because I couldn't find reliable sources with which to verify the information for a merge.--Isotope23 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't know. You may have misunderstood my comment - that is, that I can undestand having separate articles simply because I know a little about the honey industry due to its prominence where I live. My point is simply that honey does vary from place to place - given that there is honey produced in Finland, it would make sense to have an article detailing its history and varieties. This article could be expanded to cover that, but if that doesn't happen then merger is a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Ah, you are correct... I did misunderstand your comment. I thought you were saying you were from Finland.--Isotope23 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge both to honey. JIP | Talk 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to honey and if there are other countries (not branded) that should be done as well. SkierRMH,06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to honey to give the article a much needed international flavor. -Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge, either to honey, or to some new article like varieties of honey by place of origin or something similar. I don't see this as being impossible to source, and honey from different localities is going to differ in character because of differences in bee species and native flowers. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Networlding

This article seems to be concerned mostly about promoting a book by a University Prof. Non-notable--Edchilvers 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN book, part of the "Jossey Bass Business and Management Series", as per nom, just promoting the series.SkierRMH,06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is describing terminology that is only referenced in an obscure book.--Juju 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - just advertising for non-notable books.--Grahamec 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander Vinyáyá

Delete. Article is largely cruft in my opinion as I don't believe Vinyáyá is a large enough character in the Artemis Fowl canon to warrant her own character. I think she was mentioned once in one book and appeared for one scene in another, with little effect on the plot. The article is at most a paragraph and, pending any major and sudden developments in a later work, probably couldn't be expanded. CyberGhostface 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree due to her status as head of Section 8, seeing as that organization was the base for much of the 5th book. The article would indeed be short--not much more beyond supposition truly could be incorporated except for trivial things about her person, the fact that she's somewhat close to Holly, etc--but it does have expansion possiblity due to both possible future books and the movies. CrashCart9 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Merge Keep because she is a character in the story; whether or not she is worth an article is questionable. If not, Merge into the list of minor characters. Sharkface217 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being a character in a story doesn't make her deserving of her owna article.--CyberGhostface 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Artemis Fowl, really nn character. SkierRMH,06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Artemis Fowl (series) where minor characters are listed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7). M a rtinp23 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAVIA

Delete Website wasn't accessible, no assertion to notability. Just H 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Website still not accessable; ghits don't give any further information on group, just point to the website. SkierRMH,06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all Renata 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KEXL FM Tower

As logical followup of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 306 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep If high schools are notable, so too can radio towers. Sharkface217 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, noo...not a good analogy. Whereas high schools have tons of presence and notoriety in their communities, radio towers are generally considered eyesores. Are articles about monopoles and electrical wires next? 'Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

Delete Non-notable. I've been seeing a lot of AfDs for radiotowers lately. Do we have any sort of general consensus on this plauge of towercruft? wtfunkymonkey 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As none of them are realistically notable, and all of the information is already in the List of massts, why spearate articles for each of them??SkierRMH,06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Until NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES can be provided for each of these, they are by default non-notable. --Jayron 32 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per above. MER-C 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is actually very useful information for certain people, like pilots, radio operators, etc. Mets 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, no assertion of notability, no sources stated. Not all masts are notable. That means, if I build a mast outside my house, then it deserves an article on Wikipedia... Ter e nc e Ong 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete These are non notable towers. If a particular tower is notable, it could be kept - perhaps there is one out there that was a source of countless column inches in a large newspaper, or location of a famous event. But there is no evidence these are notable.Obina 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with the parent radio station or locality, no real reason to lose this useful information even if we don't need it in its own article. JYolkowski // talk 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Inclusion in List of masts is the best way to present this information. If a particular tower has some separate notability, because a giant ape climbs it or whatever, then a separate article would be fine. JamesMLane t c 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. If somone wants to merge material before the articles are deleted, go for it. Vegaswikian 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Renata 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GBC LP DBA Tower

Apparently undistinguished and dismantled radio and TV towers whcih do not appear noteable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information. Ohconfucius 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete As none of them are realistically notable, and all of the information is already in the List of massts, why spearate articles for each of them??SkierRMH,06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Until NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES can be provided for each of these, they are by default non-notable. --Jayron 32 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per above. MER-C 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep All All of these towers may seem foolish to some, but this is actually very useful information. The author wasn't just trying to write about one tower near there house. They made a bunch of articles, got sources, looked up coordinates, etc. They're harmless, even if they are for a niche reader. Mets 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, unless references are cited from independent resources. Ter e nc e Ong 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Without any guideline or other source which has criteria these meet, and without multiple independent reliable sources showing their notability, I see no basis for having articles about them. Not every identifiable thing with data in a website or book somewhere needs an article. Edison 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
delete Almost harmless perhaps individually. But collectively articles such as these make Wikipedia worse, and encourage more of the same. Anyway basis for deletion is WP:NOTindiscriminate information.Obina 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Inclusion in List of masts is the best way to present this information. If a particular tower has some separate notability, because a giant ape climbs it or whatever, then a separate article would be fine. JamesMLane t c 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All per above. Vegaswikian 03:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A card game created yesterday? An obvious speedy delete candidate. JIP | Talk 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagstaffian Cuddletouch

Non-notable card game. Prodded per WP:NFT but the prod was disputed. Shadowlynk 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per non-notability. It was invented yesterday/today!!! Sharkface217 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - obvious WP:NFT. An admin should throw a snowball at this. MER-C 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I've never seen a more blatant violation of WP:NFT in my life. wtfunkymonkey 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overjoyed Productions

Minor (VERY minor) "film production company based in Wayne, Michigan". Student films, shorts entered in local and minor film fests. Prod tag added, but removed without comment, followed by some grasping-at-straws edits intended to pump up notability. Calton | Talk 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It has some notability. Sharkface217 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Testimony of editors is not a reliable source. Please provide some evidence of this notability, so that it can be examined and confirmed or repudiated. - 152.91.9.144 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per norm. Unless anybody can convince me that the cited newspaper articles and/or festivals are fake. Sander123 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL at the in joke. MER-C 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - verifiability problems with 29 ghits. MER-C 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and MER-C.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete highly non-notable, definite verifiability issues, probable vanity and conflict of interest problems. Xtifr _tälk 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Nom FirefoxMan 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Renata 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KTMO Tower

As further cleanup following of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating this batch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 317 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. All are stubs, and none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It seems every day radio tower articles are being nominated for deletion... Keep per notability. Sharkface217 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Testimony of editors is not a reliable source. Please provide some evidence of this notability, so that it can be examined and confirmed or repudiated. - 152.91.9.144 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As none of them are realistically notable, and all of the information is already in the List of massts, why spearate articles for each of them??SkierRMH,06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Until NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES can be provided for each of these, they are by default non-notable. --Jayron 32 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per above. MER-C 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, unless independent sources are cited. Non-notable actually. Ter e nc e Ong 14:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Unless multiple independent verifiable nontrivial sources are cited to show their notability as the oldest, tallest, most important in some way, and absent any guideline for masts, they should not have articles. Edison 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not paper encyclopedia, no real reason for these to be deleted at all, well, none above anyway. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Inclusion in List of masts is the best way to present this information. If a particular tower has some separate notability, because a giant ape climbs it or whatever, then a separate article would be fine. I agree that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but deletion doesn't remove any significant information. JamesMLane t c 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with List of masts and redirect. B.Wind 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All per above. Vegaswikian 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercurial Insights

Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable entity per WP:CORP. The article formerly was longer and read like an ad, but has now been pared back to a stub. But in either case, no evidence of notability. Herostratus 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator, clarifying my position as this is a procedural nomination. Herostratus 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above point. Sharkface217 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete appears to be about 1 relevant ghit, even if more, seems nn.SkierRMH,06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. AubreyEllenShomo 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 2007 and 2009: Keep; 2012 and 2014: Redirect in lieu of deletion (until there's real information about them). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:43Z

[edit] 2014 Twenty20 World Championship, 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship

WP:NOT a crystal ball. No information except that it will be held in Bangadesh. But no sources, press coverage or anything else is provided to suggest why a sporting event planned 8 years hence should have its own article now. World-level events such as the Olympics can get away with this, but based on the article as it now stands, there's nothing to suggest why this one should. Considered PROD'ing but I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. Additional: please note that I only nominated the 2014 article; the 2007, 2009 and 2012 articles were added to the AFD by others. My vote regarding these 3 articles is listed below. 23skidoo 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comments were made before the addition of 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship to this discussion, and applies only to 2014 Twenty20 World Championship. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also worth considering for AfD: 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have no objection to the 2007 article since it's almost 2007. I'll have to check the 2009 and 2012 articles to see if the have anything substantial. 23skidoo 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom... Crystal ballin'SkierRMH,06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2014 and 2012 as too distant. Keep the others - plans are well underway for the 2007 tournament, which is taking place next November, as multiple sources show. 2009 is not so distant as to be crystallballing, though the article needs expansion, (which will surely happen as time progresses). Grutness...wha? 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2012 and 2014. Keep 2007 and 2009 as there is at least some verifiable info there. However, it's not even clear whether the 2012 tournament is going to be a Twenty20 WC yet. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2012 and 2014, Keep 2007 and 2009, per Sam Vimes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, Delete 2014 and 2012, Keep 2007 and 2009, per Sam Vimes. Does anyone know how to tag the other pages to point to this AfD discussion? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Since this AFD has expanded to include additional articles, Delete 2012; Keep 2007 and 2009. I've already "voted" regarding 2014 via my nomination. 23skidoo 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep em all especially 2007 and 2009. A merge for the latter two to Twenty20 World Cup given that the venues has already been decided. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep 2007 and 2009. Delete the other two, it has not even been confirmed that the 2012 and 2014 events will be Twenty20 tournaments or not. Andrew nixon 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep 2007 and Delete the others. TJ Spyke 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Keep 2007. It is less than a year away so a lot media info about the tournament will come out very soon. I'm not sure about the rest though. Gizza^Chat ^© 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep The articles are not violating the "crystal ball" criteria. Particularly the 2007 event, which should clearly not be in the nomination based on the content policies. Ansell 10:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom -- Steve Hart 11:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep 2007, Delete others. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All info about distant events can be included at the Twenty20 World Championship page. Individual events articles can be recreated when there's something verifiable worth writing about. --DeLarge 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:52Z

[edit] Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Prior decision to delete was overturned at DRV and is now back for reconsideration. An intermediate userficiation did not result in changes to the article, so is back as the original. Procedural-listing-no-opinion-from-me. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The three or so facts on the article are sourced, however, the school does not appear to pass the primary notability criterion, as I cannot find evidence of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works specifically about the school, as opposed to briefly featuring it. Googling turns up mostly directory entries and league tables, and of course we can't synthesize from those. No recommendation yet. Chris cheese whine 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete A brief search through the Gale and Proquest peridocial databases yields about 13 newspaper mentions. All seem to be about individual students rather than the school itself. There are two articles (in local paper, the Orange County Register) about stellar performance in nationwide high school science comeptitions. There were a couple articles about students who did some humanitarian projects, again from local paper. LA Times has an article profiling a student who "Easily Jumps Language Barrier, Keeps Going; With an awesome 5.1 grade-point average, Oanh Nguyen has earned a spot at USC's medical school" I don't know if this confers notability. I'm leaning towards no becuase none of the articles had the school as a subject, thus failing WP:SCHOOL Copysan 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As to the 5.1 GPA, accepted wisdom would suggest that it would still be honour-by-association. Chris cheese whine 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

5.1 GPA is hardly an honor. I had over a 5.1 (just take a couple APs and Honors), yet I didn't have any articles written about me. In any case, GPA is a relative measurement, based on how hard a schools' teachers grade. (See Grade_inflation) We should not be basing a school's notability off of a single person (or even multiple people) with a high GPA. I'd even hold off on basing school notability on average standardized test score (ie SATs). (However, if a school was identified as a high performing school and parents adamantly try to get their kids into it, like what happened in some San Francisco schools this past year, then I'd say that is notable) Copysan 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, honour-by-association. As in, "the kid did something good, therefore the school is good". Converse of guilt-by-association. :) Chris cheese whine 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a notability critera... The closest is probaby "The school has notable alumni or staff" (WP:SCHOOL), but the student is not notable. Copysan 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but we just don't do notability-by-association. Ever. So it's not something that would confer any sort of notability on the school itself. Chris cheese whine 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So were in agreement? Copysan 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's a stub in progress, it's fully cited, have to keep it Mets 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to keep it, according to what? Not being funny, just curious. Chris cheese whine 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete us utterly non-notable. Stammer 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep First the article, then the process: The school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program the highest honor granted to a school in the United States. We seem to have consensus at both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 that selcetion for a national honor by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is an extremely strong claim of notability. The article will still benefit from expansion but it seems that some are too intent on destroying articles to allow that. This AfD seems to be yet another extremely bad faith nomination made just hours after the school survived a DRV, showing that there was a broad consensus among Wikipedians that the previous AfD process was contaminated by bias. Without allowing any opportunity to improve the article after the end of the DRV, this AfD seems to be further proof that there is no intention to improve Wikipedia, but a concerted effort to impose a narrow deletionist view in the face of an overwhelming consensus to the contrary. Couldn't you have waited a few more hours -- maybe even a few days -- before you started your attacks again? Alansohn 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You (continue to) wrongly assume that a claim to notability automatically implies notability. It does not. Yes, Fairmont has a claim to notability -- being a Blue Ribbon school -- indicating that non-trivial outside coverage is possible. However, actual notability is shown by actually finding such coverage, which we can use to write a good Wikipedia article. Yet the only non-trivial outside source that anybody has found in the 10 days of the first AFD and the DRV is the 255-word write-up in (the local edition of) the LA Times. This is not enough to build a Wikipedia article on. You say this article will "benefit from expansion," but you provide no evidence that this can be done. Pan Dan 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fwiw, Alansohn, the renomination was standard procedure since the call to restore at DRV was just a slight majority. On "can't impove", the article was userfied in your userspace during the DRV, so neither of your claims are anywhere near factual, and I would recommend you re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Consider this a formal warning. ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the reasoning provided in the first AfD and Deletion Review. Eusebeus 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Alansohn's well-reasoned remarks. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:School. TSO1D 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notability is strongly demonstrated within this article and also very well referenced through multiple non-trivial sources. Strongly disagree with attempts to dismiss the notability of Blue Ribbon schools, not to mention those which offer the International Baccalaureate program. Yamaguchi先生 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re: "multiple non-trivial sources" -- Can you point to two? Pan Dan 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Yamaguchi and per WP:SCHOOLS. bbx 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Alansohn makes a very hard to deny argument. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I found it pretty easy to deny. See above. Pan Dan 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Yamaguchi, Alansohn, etc. --Myles Long 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and previous AfD. I fail to see the "very hard to deny" argument by Alansohn: do you mean the old argument for many (school) AfD's that the article will somehow improve in the future, although no one really says how it will improve and what sources will be used to do that? The Blue Ribbon is not giving any notability, as indicated by the lack of press coverage and in-depth articles the award has generated, and the International Baccalaureate program is even worse in that regard (the schools pay to become one: not really an award, isn't it?). This school is not notable, and those wanting to keep it have had more than enough time to demonstrate the oppposite, but have failed to do so.Fram 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Subject is still notable as an International Baccalaureate school, part of the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and for being the largest and oldest non-sectarian private school in the area. Wikipedia has no shortage of those who are in denial, but this is not a valid reason for deletion, the article clearly and concisely demonstrates notability and meets all relevant inclusion policies. Silensor 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Like User:Alansohn, you cite claims to notability. Multiple non-trivial outside sources, which are missing here, would show actual notability. Pan Dan 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Fram and my response to User:Alansohn. Despite >10 days and many searches by diligent Wikipedians, there appear not to be multiple non-trivial outside sources we could use to write a good Wikipedia article about this school. Pan Dan 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please this school is notable enough and meets our proposed school inclusion guidelines too Yuckfoo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The LA Times did a write-up of the openning, plus won national awards and recognition. Notable enough. --Oakshade 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:56Z

[edit] Lois Herr

delete as non-notable failed political candidate. no other political offices held. Took only 39% in first and only run for office. Montco 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; if kept we'd have about 300 articles for also-rans in the infamous California gubenatorial race :) SkierRMH,06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete she actually ran twice (2004 and 2006) and lost both times. NawlinWiki 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep A person who doesn't get 1% of the vote for a seat in the US House of Representatives is likewise not notable. A person who gains 39% of the vote for a seat in the House is. Fg2 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep A major party candidate for a seat in the U.S. Congress is always noteworthy. Possible bad faith nomination. DvonD 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep she ran twice and had a strong showing for a Democrat in a vastly Republican territory. It is important to showcase the candidates because of their viewpoints and to show who the eventual winner ran against. Beno1983 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Being the major-party nominee for a Congressional seat is ipso facto notable, regardless of what else the person has done and regardless of the election results. JamesMLane t c 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete All. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of idioms in the English language

This afd found that there is strong consensus that lists of idioms violate WP:WINAD. Additional concerns are that they are unsourced, and that there are problems sourcing them and that they contain original research. The only defence put up was the non-argument that these lists are useful. Also nominated are the lists of idioms for the letters R through Z inclusive (V was never created) and the page to which all the lists were transcluded. These were recently copied to Wiktionary. MER-C 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is very useful, and not something found in a dictionary. True any individual phrase isn't worthy of an entry, but the lists are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this debate. This stuff can be found in our' dictionary, Wiktionary at wikt:Category:Idioms. And there is a clear precedent that this stuff doesn't belong here. MER-C 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Again, I will say this - idioms are encyclopedic material. These lists should not be deleted. Almost all the information in these articles CAN be sourced. --- RockMFR 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No they're not, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A) and WP:WINAD. Not every phrase mentioned is an idiom, too, so there's a lot of sourcing to be done. MER-C 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you refute my argument with an Afd discussion in which I also voted keep? I disagree with the precedent that was set. Precedent is not always correct, especially if there is not strong consensus. --- RockMFR 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per precedence Copysan 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Again, usefulness is not a criteria for keeping, and all the previous parts were deleted with consensus, no point in saving the tail end of a list that was entirely deleted because it was hopelessly unverifiable, OR, and unencyclopedic. Wintermut3 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all, very useful and encyclopedic lists. JIP | Talk 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedence Peregrine_^AY 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as they've already been transwickied, and they're more appropriate there, they can be deleted here.SkierRMH,06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also WP:V as unverifiable, and WP:OR as possible original research. No references, and no hope for expansion even if refs are found. No objection to a transwiki move to wiktionary. --Jayron 32 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fascinating, but let the Wiktionary have it. --Brianyoumans 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. utcursch | talk 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Move to Wiktionary. Sander123 10:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Verify everything is properly transwikified, then delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary. Ter e nc e Ong 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedent. Punkmorten 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above cited precedent. Now that the list for idioms beginning with A has been deleted, it would be a mistake to keep others. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that's why we have the Wiktionary and just because something is useful does not mean it deserves an article here. How-to guides are also useful but we routinely delete them, for example. --The Way 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All per nom, per above "delete" reasons, and per reasons given in the AfD for the deleted "(A)" list. Problems of original research remain, and it is matter of argument whether or not all the examples in all the lists are idioms. Agent 86 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Per nom. These interesting and useful items of original research can be viewed elsewhere. Edison 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fascinating, but let the Wiktionary have it.--johno95 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per last time, and let's not play this game with multiple AfDs again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vectro (talk • contribs).
Keep - Bisected8 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote; hence you need to explain your input. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precident with (A) and WP:NOT. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is no use for the list of idioms in Wikipedia. Besides, a list of all of them is in Wiktionary.--PrestonH 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Wilkinson

Fails WP:Vanity - article created by User:Dean Wilkinson. - Saikokira 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - autobiography. MER-C 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Couldn't verify many of the writing credits claimed: SkierRMH,06:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unnotable screenwriter who only hasn't actually been lead writer in any of the series listed.--Juju 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as all above. DrKiernan 12:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Brown (2nd nomination)

Non-notable candidate. Ran three times for Congress and lost each time. She has nothing else to confer notability upon her. She's just an eye doctor. This is a tough one for me since I have contributed to the article myself. But honestly, she probably isn't going to run again much less get elected. So it makes sense to nix the article. Montco 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Judging from the last AFD, her notability was established by the publication 120 medical articles. Do those articles meet the Professor test? Copysan 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reply She's run some consultancy called the "Center for Value-Based Medicine" for some years. Writing papers I am sure is part and parcel of the endeavor. However, it gets 100 or so google hits and her book [4] barely cracks the Amazon top 250,000. I can't verify the number of works that have been published and whether or not they are in mainstream journals. Personally, I doubt she would have cut it without the recent political activity and that is losing its relevance as time goes on. Montco 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This already survived an AFD where many people gave their opinion. Nothing has changed since then. Allon Fambrizzi 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- Comment Actually that's the problem, nothing has changed. Some of the keep votes were predicated on further evidence being provided of her notability in the medical field by User:DialUp. Its been a year and nothing has really been forthcoming. Montco 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I would consider someone who was competitive in a Congressional race quite notable. Jarfingle 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete She was the party nominee only twice; the first time she lost in the primary. She may have written articles and books, but there is nothing in the article about them. Unless someone improves the article to show notability through her research work... --Brianyoumans 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete she lost the election three times and is no longer politically active, thus she is completly unnotable--Juju 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Her claim to notability is her list of medical articles, don't pick delete without even addressing that bit. Her political aspirations were discussed before, now this needs to be discussed instead. -Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment If she should be kept as a notable author of articles, doesn't the article need to assert that notability? Her non-political career is barely mentioned in the article, and her writings not at all. Fan-1967 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Allon Fambrizzi. Charlie 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete unless evidence of the notability of her medical and research career is asserted with references to non-trivial reliable third parties by the time this AfD ends. Being a failed candidate for a US congressional seat is no more notable than being a failed candidate for governmental office in Bangladesh or Mauritius. --Charlene 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Membership in the American Congress is much more powerful than governmental offices in those countries, and individual candidates here are much more widely publicized (i.e. more money is spent promoting them), whereas many newer democracies elect candidates via lists prepared by their party. Allon Fambrizzi 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

Strong Keep - per Allon Fambrizzi, TestPilot 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A major-party nominee for Congress is notable. If she's retired from politics, that means only that no one will be reading the article to get information on which to vote. It might well be of interest to someone interested in the history of the elections for the seat. Therefore, her alleged retirement doesn't entail nonnotability. JamesMLane t c 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep A defeated major party candidate for national office is notable, even if only nominated once. Its not as if we had hundreds of major parties. There will be 471 or 2 of them every two years, WP can manage that. Being one of the 500 or so most important people to lose an election is notability enough. DGG 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO she passes our notability guidelines. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duane Burghard

Failed political candidate, took only 36% of the vote in his only run. Non-notable small business owner otherwise. Montco 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep According to his website he is running for national office again in 2008, which makes the article of current interest. Allon Fambrizzi 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- Comment No its just that the person who wrote the article never updated after the election. No evidence he is running in 2008. Montco 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - What do you consider "evidence"? He says he is running again which means that, as of late 2006, he is campaigning for that seat. Allon Fambrizzi 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
Delete Being a candidate for a 2008 race still would not give any notariety, esp. w/ track record.SkierRMH,07:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree, one failure, in a safe seat for the other party, does not constitute notability. For what it is worth, the official campaign site linked to in the article says, in a message obviously posted on election night, that he will be running in 2008. So, as of election night, he intended to run again. --Brianyoumans 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete failure in election, unless done in an unusual manner, is not cause of notability.--Juju 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable failed election candidate. Ter e nc e Ong 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable by virtue of being major-party nominee for Congress, regardless of future plans. JamesMLane t c 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per JamesMLane -- Steve Hart 13:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per JMLane, as well as numerous news hits on his name related to the election (qualifies under WP:BIO). | Mr. Darcy talk 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaver Control

personal opinion + non-notable Peregrine_^AY 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete if this was without personal opinion, I would suggest a WEAK merge with the article on beavers...but alas this simply doesn't have any value. -WarthogDemon 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete seems to fail WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, although I have no problem with an article on problems, issues and theories of the beaver population. If there is any valuable information in this article, it should be moved to Beaver and this fork deleted. -Markeer 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Article culd have merit if it was about current control methods and policy, but it is currently simply a POV. Needs to completely start from scratch to be of any merit. Canderra 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unobtainium

Unverified, fictional dictionary definition. There are two references that the term was used by the U.S. military as a euphamism for titanium. If true, that information could be added to the titanium article. The rest of this article is unverifiable, and also violates WP:NOT in that wikipedia is not a dictionary definition. Jayron 32 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Without looking to article I knew what it was going to be about (big sci-fi fan)... Does need rewrite and some references, but basic idea is OK.SkierRMH,07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is pretty widely used in Sci-Fi, good to keep. Mets 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per SkierRMH. Sander123 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. It is unverified and thus needs some work, but it isn't unverifiable. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I've heard this used not only in sci-fi context, but also in an engineering context as well, and its not a neologism. This article seems to go beyond a mere dictionary definition to something that's likely worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Wintermut3 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, expansion, encyclopedic word. Ter e nc e Ong 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Per comments. Sufficient content to be encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This article is relevant, even though it is related to a peculiar (humorous?) expression. It is informative enough, so that people who come with a question will get an answer. Its style and formatting should be improved. The term "unobtainium" can be traced to many sci-fi authors; it has been used in popular science magazines as well. -- Hugo Dufort 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as per above. Appears often enough in science fiction to warrant an encyclopedia entry. — SolarianKnight 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the concept is useful and used all the time in engineering contexts. For example, if the cost/kg of orbiting a satellite can be reduced, then the satellites themselves would become much less expensive, since we'd no longer need to make them from the finest unobtainium.LouScheffer 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, It's probably necessary to keep this article though it does need some major revision. The article should approach from a more scientific/engineering point of view and then briefly mention the popular culture references at the end. The second mention of "The Core" use of unobtanium belongs in "The Core" article. jnagel 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nisio Isin

Unverifiable as far as I can tell. All ISBN lead to no known results in Worldcat and Library of Congress. Only about 300 Ghits for the pen name and as far as I can tell most of the best hits are Japanese Wiki (unusable for verifiability). Next to no results in English anywhere on the web. ju66l3r 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Did you try searching for his Kanji name, seeing as he is Japanese and all? I got 105,000 hits on google, and I found a few of his books on world cat, under a different English spelling of his name(Japanese doesn't have the 'si' sound, so they instead use the 'shi' sound on that site).SuperDT 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: And I'm supposed to be able to verify sources written in Kanji how again? And then you used a name that no longer has the palindromic effect claimed by the article to be so important to the author's transliteration to find books on Worldcat (which still doesn't explain why the ISBN's don't line up with any of the other books)? The two books that you do find under the new non-pen name aren't referenced anywhere in the article (making them further suspect). And finally, one of those two books is written in korean according to your Worldcat search. None of that helps verifiability. ju66l3r 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While English sources are preferred, there's no rules against sources in languages other than English especially for subjects in a specific language area. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. Where are those sources? No source for the award recognition. No source for the near WP:BLP-violating claim that he's a college dropout. No ISBNs that link to books anywhere that I can find. No titles for some alternate romanization of his name in the article. ju66l3r 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All ISBN lead to known results in Webcat plus.MMTD 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per SuperDT. Appears to have been a simple transliteration problem. Clearly verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The standard romanization of his name is "Nishio Ishin". His English version pen name is "NISIO ISIN". It is point symmetric and palindromic. MMTD 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, the nominator renamed the article from "NISIO ISIN" to "Nisio Isin". MMTD 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but should be checked by those with the ability to verify facts in Japanese, and unverifiable claims removed; while ju66l3r is incorrect to believe that this needs deleting, he is correct to be concerned about WP:BLP.
For example, I believe that the article is incorrect to state that the Mephisto award is an annual event, given that -- unless I'm misreading something -- it would seem that over 30 Mephistos have been awarded since 1996. If other parts of the article are equally unreliable, considerable cleanup may be required. Perhaps an {{expert}} tag would be appropriate once this AfD has been cleared up. — Haeleth Talk 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Clicking on the .jp Amazon link from the ISBN page is a relatively easy way to verify that the books exist. Neier 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Article is verified. Speedy keep ~~if the original submitter presents no further problems.~~ I feel that the nominator's reasoning is flawed. Neither the Library of Congress nor OCLC member institutions regularly catalog manga or light novels that are published in Japanese. (LOC is very backloged and there's no demand for such records. OCLC's Japanese members are usually academic libraries whose focus is not manga.) If we search the National Diet Library's catalog for the author's name in the native language (西尾維新), it pulls bibliographic entries for works listed on the pages, no problem. We can verify that the Mephisto-Award exists and that Nishio Isin was the recipient of one per this column "Nyūsuna Hondana" on a Japanese news portal. Additional article fact checking is better done outside of the AFD process. --Kunzite 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing to speedy keep. Notability: He's currently ranked #2 on the Daily Yomiuri's best selling new fiction list. Down from #1 last week. [5]. Here's an independant biography which also says that he did not graduate from Ritsumei U. [6]. --Kunzite 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per the guy above me. --Ppk01 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:02Z

[edit] Spiderbaby (Yeah-Yeah-Yeah)

There are a number of these contested Prods about White Zombie album tracks, but I'm deliberately not mass-listing them to avoid a trainwreck. Simply put, this one was not released as a single and appears not to have achieved anything noteworthy, apart from having samples from specific films BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This is a waste of bandwidth and disk space. Mets 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article includes useful information about this particular song.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs).
- Usefulness doesn't equal notability, though. In what way is the song notable? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No matter how much info the article contains, the song is still non-notable. -- Kicking222 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nothing about this song distinguishes it from others that would forma stand-alone article -- Whpq 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, ya know, i'm sure people can add information to it anytime they want so it live up to your expectations...that's what this site is for, right? Which probably won't happen if you delete the page entirely.

I'm aware that people can add information whenever they want, but the point is that there doesn't seem to be much out there which can be said about it. If there's information which establishes notability and which is added, I'm all for keeping the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:00Z

[edit] I Am Legend (song)

There are a number of these contested Prods about White Zombie album tracks, but in the interests of avoiding train wrecks and considering each on its merits, I'll list them individually. This particular track was not released as a single, although it was covered for a tribute album and apparently is slightly different from the band's traditional sound, which sounds as though it may be pushing notability but not there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mets 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable -- Steve Hart 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...You're not helping the expansion of the page by deleting it ya know.

AfDs run for five days, which should be enough to establish notability or lack thereof. The article was created on October 20, so it's not like there hasn't been time to expand it. If there's information which can establish the notability of the song, I would suggest that contributing it here or in the article itself is a good policy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:03Z

[edit] Soul-Crusher (song)

There are a number of contested Prods of White Zombie album tracks, but in order to ensure that each is considered on its merits, I'm listing them individually. This particular track was not released as a single, but contains lyrical references to various films, as well as a spoken-word section delivered by Iggy Pop. All of that seems to be gaining on notability, but probably not there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mets 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable -- Steve Hart 13:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that notability you keep talking about not seeing might just get there...unless ofcoarse you delete the page.

- In which way might it get there? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 by User:Cholmes75. NawlinWiki 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fnugg

non notable band; previous speedy removed without comment by author (a band member); I'm willing to bet a prod would meet the same fate. Brianyoumans 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The author cannot remove speedy tags so I have replaced it. Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Not notable. Frexes 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this band is not known at all. ArchStanton 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lebensborn —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:07Z

[edit] Nazi Breeding Camps

No explicit citations; only external link is dead; I gather that it is seriously questioned whether such camps ever existed (as against merely eugenics-based matchmaking). It is possible that there is article potential here, such as about whether they existed, but the current article has been sitting for some time as a probably misleading stub going nowhere. Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: when I went to notify the person who wrote almost all of this, it turns out that he is indef blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

~~*Keep/Rewrite~~ The article needs proper sourcing and rewriting, but the topic is immensely relevant for an understanding of Nazi Germany. I will see what I can do to find some references, beside Wikipedia-irrelevant personal memories of a conversation with an old lady who was directly involved. As far as I remember, the matching took physically place at specific "institutions". Stammer 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise the topic is controversial and I may be affected by personal recollections. This source may give an idea of what was going on. While the existence of the Lebensborn program is undisputed, the unresolved issue is whether such matchings were actually encouraged and to some extent organised, as my lady told me. There are claims that they were, but apparently the rumours, that were widespread even before WW2, could not be substantiated by historians (1). Stammer 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be diverging views on this topic (see e.g. this page , and the references therein), as well as distinctions between "the encourgagement of non-marital pregnancies between Aryan youths" (like the lady I met and her SS mate) and more brutal variants. Anyways, at this stage it's probably better to Merge/Redirect into Lebensborn. Stammer 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

. *Delete, I don't see any good reason for inclusion of this article here on Wikipedia. Needs sources, which is unlikely to find. Sounds like a made up hoax. Ter e nc e Ong 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, at least until Stammer has had a chance to do some research. I also knew a woman who was involved in this (very much against her will - they chained her to a bed for over a year); although her recollections were also Wikipedia-irrelevant, my memory of them leads me to believe that this is neither a hoax nor a non-notable topic. --Charlene 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, apparently a hoax. Pathlessdesert 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete 60 years after the fall of Hitler, there should be ample archival material to substantiate claims such as those made in the article if the claims accurately describe the Lebensborn program. If someone cares to do the research and provide reliable and verifiable sources for the claims, the article could be kept. It not written in a very encyclopedic style at present, and without sources it should go. Edison 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment, not a hoax and if substantial it should be re-directed to Lebensborn, which was a subsidiary of the SS to breed pure Aryans (what ever that may be) Alf photoman 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete until I can see more than one source, and a reliable source at that (not sure about that web site). Endless blue 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as missing WP:V then redirect to Lebensborn as a vaguely plausible search term. If it exists as a redirect, there's less likelihood of it being recreated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Lebensborn and/or Nazi eugenics; I don't see how it needs its own article given these other two. Keesiewonder 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Merge into Lebensborn, there are some German language references to this subject, but most could be tranlated as to refer to Lebensborn than to specific camps. SkierRMH,08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlecity

A downloadable game that is unreferenced; fails WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by an anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable (184 Google results for "BattleCity Classic", including wiki references); no reference to independant articles. Probably WP:COI. There is also a link on Battle City (video game). Jivlain 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:N and reads like it has WP:NPOV issues, making claims such as 'popular' with no cited sourced to back it up. (And I hate it when Anons un-prod something without giving a reason.) The Kinslayer 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above; this appears to be an independently-coded Battle City (video game) knockoff, with no indication of notability. --Alan Au 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This game is not a knockoff, and has no similarity to Battle City (video game) besides that it has player-controlled tanks. Battle City (video game) is referenced because its idea inspired the game, however the game itself bears no resemblance. Please assist me by indicating ways I can improve the article. I will look for additional references. I have played this game since it was released in 1994. At the time, it was the only multiplayer game free on the internet (wish I had a reference to that) that I could find which is why I played it so much and think it deserves an article. Many references and articles became broken links when the game was unavailable for several years until Codemallet brought it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weebo (talk • contribs). — Weebo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: Sorry, I just assumed it signed my name automatically. (new to wikipedia but learning)Weebo 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Do not discount the article because an editor is new to Wikipedia and does not follow procedure to the letter. That said, for a published game it should have more references, keep for clean up. --MegaBurn 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. nn Nashville Monkey 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Renata 06:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puntambekar

Proposed deletion tag removed with the comment "Well, Puntambekars are one of the only families to live on four continents, notably North America and Europe." by User:Storms991 who created the article. If that's the best argument, I'd say delete. Mereda 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not a caste, just a family name. No scope for turning into a disambig page, as none of the "well-known" Puntambekars mentioned in the article have their own article. For a precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soni (Indian family name). utcursch | talk 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Utcursch, without prejudice against a disambiguation page if required. MER-C 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Utcursch is a native wikipedian. In Asian related AfD's I will follow the opinion of native wikipedians because we cant take google hits as a benchmark in Asian related AFD's. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Utcursh. SkierRMH,08:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik A. Williams

Deprodded. This is an article for an actor that has been an extra or really minor role for a few films and is now in a few low budget films whose only presence is their own websites. Also, he was on the Tyra Banks Show. There's no evident way this person could meet WP:BIO. The article lacks sources, as well. Kchase T 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete this individual has no significant credits to make him relevant for insertion into the encyclopedia.--Juju 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. DrKiernan 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Imdb=6 bit roles, 1 producer credit, 1 talk show appearance... smells like WP:BIO fail to me. SkierRMH,08:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was - Result Speedy Delete under Speedy deletion general criteria #7 Gnangarra 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perth Tram Company

Because the article is not encyclopaedic, and it reads like an advertisment DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment there is a brief discussion on this at Talk:Perth, Western Australia (which the nominator probably should have mentioned), where it is established that the editor who requested this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Perth actually meant the historical tram company in Perth, not the current tourist tram operator. --Canley 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I created this article after a misinterpretation of what was intended for the article. After a discussion involving the wikipedian who wanted the article created, this article was found to be not what was wanted. I do not think it contributes to the Perth-related articles, hence my delete comment. --Ali K 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No need for this to continue I was the only other editor and agree that it was the result of a misinterpretation of what was requested. Gnangarra 11:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as reposted material of a speculative nature. (aeropagitica) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 307

Episode is certainly not titled "Episode 307", article is blatant speculation, article goes against Lost guidelines (agreed upon via consensus) to only have verifiable information from ABC (Note: This article has previously been deleted several times as: Not in Portland and Not in Portland (Lost) (Which went through AfD)) - Speedy delete as recreation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. Don't we have to wait until February to confirm anyways? -- Ned Scott 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have at least some mainstream sources that it cites, which is the usual criterion for whether we can write about a future event---quoting mainstream-media speculation is different than speculating ourselves (the links to blog speculation should be cut out, though). I'm not sure what this separate consensus on Lost is, but I don't like the idea of it having its own separate verifiability policy. --Delirium 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete this article shouldn't even require an AfD, it has already been deleted per AfD here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost) and speedy deleted many times since then. None of the references in this article have any concrete info, the name of the episode isn't even confirmed. Let this page die already. And this has nothing to do with "Lost guidelines", the page has no justification to exist under WP guidelines - this page should be deleted regardless of which show it is. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as recreated material. Ter e nc e Ong 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as recreated material.-- danntm ^T _C 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion until the album is released. So far we only have "it probably exists because a lot of people think it exists". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:23Z

[edit] One (Rihanna album)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, only reference is a blog entry. Also nominating By Yo' Side, per WP:N as well, singles from unreleased albums can't be notable yet. Deprodded so sending here. Tubezone 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By Yo' Side (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete as nom, this article doesn't belong until it has real sources to verify it instead of blogs. Tubezone 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Although most of it is based on blogs etc, this is a confirmed upcoming album of a popular artist and should not be completely deleted whatsoever. A lacking-sources template could do the trick. --Alexignatiou 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's my impression that the lacking-sources template implies that some reliable sources exist, which doesn't seem to apply to this case. —ShadowHalo 23:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep It is very possible that tihs is a true album. It's on enough blogs to at least prove that there is an album being released by Rihanna summer 2007. However, it is lacking sources. Anom8trw8 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Holden

Nominating this former game show contestant for deletion as not notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert K S (talk • contribs).

Delete - second place in teen version of TV show is hardly notable. Budgiekiller 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete When the subject isn't notable to merit more than a two-sentence entry, then they're hardly notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RampageouS^{talk to me} 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Chris Holden is tenuously notable within Jeopardy!; let alone outside of it. Andy Saund e rs 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom, nn all the way. SkierRMH,08:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 2.1

Not notable Sleepyhead 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to have no more than trivial mentions in news sources and appears to be a protologism. Web2.0-cruft. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2.1 - neologism 2.1. Fails 2.1 WP:V 2.1. MER-C 2.1 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Is it just me, or does there seem to be a small walled garden of Emporis crap? -- Kicking222 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NEO. Ter e nc e Ong 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. --John Seward 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Web 2.1 or Web 3.0 is the correct terminology, it exists now and is being further explored. Here is one citation, there are many others, try using google.com What Comes After Web 2.0? Google search Web 2.1 Google search Web 3.0 Octopus-Hands 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide any reference that provides support specifically to what the article actually talks about as of the current version? You know, "Coined by Emporis in 2005", "the system provider pays out revenue shares to its contributors" and all that. --John Seward 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or failing that redirect without any merge whatsoever to Web 2.0. A nebulous but widespread term (Web 2.0) that's being extended in even more nebulous way in one little known context by one source? No wait, maybe redirect isn't the way after all - otherwise we get redirects like "Web 2.3.0RC2 patch 2 build 669 'Triumphant Return of the HampsterDance'". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:09Z

[edit] Open Ebooks Directory

Non-notable commercial website. This article caught my attention when I noticed User:212.12.29.1 spamming many articles with links to e-library.net and sometimes, this article (under "See also"). The article was created by User:Artdhtml. User:Artdhtml self-identifies as Alexei Kouznetsov[7]. A whois[8] reveals that the site belongs to him. His website also says that he is associated with the site ("programming and support")[9]. Alexa rankings: 294,826 (e-library.net) and (943,974) e-library.us. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as spam and nom. MER-C 11:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep How the site becomes notable if not to create the links to it? User:Artdhtml

How the site becomes notable? This seems to be a WP:COI case. utcursch | talk 10:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:COI. SkierRMH,09:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Steve Hart 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirects go to WP:RFD. Note that this is a perfectly fine and correctly tagged {{R from alternate language}}. Kusma (討論) 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 汉宣帝

nonsensical and unused redirect Quk 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Horse

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, blog-driven hoax SWAdair 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete this hoax of a horse, of course, of course. wtfunkymonkey 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete how many hoaxes does a horse have? There is one hoax per horse. Budgiekiller 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Do they have photoshopped newspaper articles, too? MER-C 11:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep I came to Wikipedia searching for information about the creation of the hoax and found this article quite relevant in that search. Krbrowning 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete After some consideration it appears that a number of blogs have misappropriated Wikipedia to drive their hoax. Krbrowning 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article presents the hoax as if it were true. NawlinWiki 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's badly written, too. Crispinus211 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN Why is this even being discussed? User At Work 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete for great justice. Doesn't even qualify as a bad joke; this may be the first wikipedia-based meta-hoax I've heard of, though. --moof 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Richard W.M. Jones 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a hoax, and wikipedia should clearly state this. ~~It would be best to lock the article to a version like 20:00, 4 December 2006 12.199.100.178, which was almost correct.~~ On a second note: it indeed is not a hoax. Is was an art project created by Hardy Burmeier. Other people (boingboing?) made a hoax out of it. The German page I linked in 'discussion' explains the motivation of the art project. I think this art project is worth an article in wikipedia. (Unfortunately, since English is my 3th and German my 4th language, I do not have enough knowledge of the 2 of them to make a German to English translation.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.197.214.12 (talk • contribs).
Keep This is a hoax, an amusing one at that, and you would have to be dumb as a post to not realize that it is. If Wikipedia is really worried about covering their but, then they could put a disclaimer about that at the top. The article should NOT be deleted
Delete This hoax really doesn't predate the Tinselman/BoingBoing coverage. No need to keep driving a 15-minute internet meme. Zachlipton 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Duhhh my name is Mark Frauenfelder, I'm totally gonna pwn Wikipedia ololol I am teh best!" Seriously, Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every Internet meme that drives by. That's what Encyclopedia Dramatica is for! six.oh.six 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Other hoaxes are here on wikipedia, why not this one? Label as hoax, moove on. You are only feeding the long horse hoax the grass and grain it needs by debating this. Cowicide 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ho ho, comedy vandalism. Delete and salt. Artw 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete insufficiently notable. Andre (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Long horses are adorable. --Perceive 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dull. --drauh 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Long Horses totally rule. Sean Bonner 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see you've contributed a bad photoshop job to the post at BoingBoing. Let's relegate this to BJAODN --drauh 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep If not worth an article before, the Boingboing things certainly generated enough publicity for people to look it up on wiki and expect to find something useful. Needs to be edited harcore though. jubeanation 9:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that most Boing Boing readers are aware of wikipeida without being incited to vandalise it, so I'm a bit confused as to why Boing Boing has chosen to do this. It's certainly nothing we should pander to Artw 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Are you kidding me? If you delete this, you're spitting on the grave of an extinct, noble animal. For shame.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.171.214.254 (talk • contribs).
Keep If only for the fact that even hoaxes deserve entries. --clpo13 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt, unless good verifiable sources are cited indicating that this hoax is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no sources, hoax. Boing Boing posters should know better. feydey 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dpbsmith. Joyous! | Talk 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and use the time to do better photoshopping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete recent hoax, unless someone has a source explains otherwise, I see little chance that the hoax will even live to the end of this AfD debate.--SirNuke 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete After forty-four edits in 2 days, this article has devolved into nonsense. I don't see any likelyhood of improvement. Tubezone 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete for lack for sources to prove truthfulness of content.-- danntm ^T _C 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete for no sources, now or ever. It appears to be an attempt to see how much traction BoingBoing can give to a hoax by getting people to link to it and post about it, artificially inflating its ~~notability~~ Googlability. I'm guessing their aim is to create controversy and get a respectable mainstream publication to acknowledge it, at which point it will be notable enough for Wikipedia, and they'll have "won" and can go back to posting goatse sightings and HOWTO makecrapfromcrap. mjb 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can see an article about the Long Horse hoax, but not the article perpetuating the Long Horse hoax. Zealander 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the WP:HOAX guideline and the WP:NOR policy. --Kjoonlee 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As I understand it, the long horse was initially a niche of art. Even if we care to overlook that, wikipedia does need an article to explain such a virulent hoax. Robinoke 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep but needs vast improvement and proper sources. There isn't much online other than a lot of speculation, so it will need some printed sources. David L Rattigan 10:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Has some mild historical merit, if only for the amount of work that went into modifying a picture with the tools available at the time. I recommend merging into List of hoaxes. Ma11achy 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is a publicity stunt by a website - If we allow this crap to remain every blog on the web will try their own, just to get their name in Wikipedia. It has no sources, no documentation. All it shows is that someone can do some bad photoshopping. --Outlander 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please be aware that Burmeier was born in 1971, not that the photos were done then. He's a digital artist.[10] -- nae'blis 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or rename How to create yet another annoying, witless meme.Lowerarchy 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete (and strike my last "vote"). I had assumed it was a genuinely historical hoax, but on further inspection, it appears it is just an Internet hoax that has developed in the past few days/weeks out of the artwork of this guy Burmeier's work. David L Rattigan 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Can't we just put a {{humour}} template on it? Mark it as a hoax, add a history of the hoax and keep the existing content as a description of the hoax's intent. I thoroughly disagree that this article should be deleted; marking it as an article that's deliberately inaccurate for humourous purposes seems a reasonable alternative. --aniki21 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- What a great idea! Lets all just use WP:NOT as toilet paper! Artw 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - who will even remember this in 6 months time? --h2g2bob 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete - not every meme deserves its own Wikipedia entry, at least not right away. Let's check back to see if anyone remembers this in, say, a year... -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to a page titled "Long horse hoax", explaining the origins of the hoax, and the subsequent online following. -AtionSong 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs to be somewhere for people to go to figure out if this thing is real or not, which it obviously isn't, but it had me going here to check if it was in the first place. -Iggy248 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - stupid.--Deglr6328 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. Luvcraft 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep - I know nothing of Wikipedia protocols or procedure, nor do I care but I have seen a long horse.--Special:Contributions/71.230.123.79

WP:NOT, WP:POINT --Kjoonlee 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't cross out other's posts. It may not be a great post, but it's not really disruptive. Remember that this is not a poll: the aim is to convince an admin that the article should stay or go. --h2g2bob 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to gymnastics until/unless someone wishes to write an encyclopedic article on the men's long horse gymnastics equipment (and Olympic event/discipline also known as the vault). B.Wind 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Would Vault (gymnastics) be a better, more specific target then? vaulting horse redirects there. Please note that this redirect can be made editorially even if this article is deleted, and probably should be made anyway from the lowercase "long horse". -- nae'blis 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Vault (gymnastics) -don't salvage this nonsense. SkierRMH,09:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. —An gr 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pavel Novotný

looks good, but won no price and doesnt do something new (WP:PORN BIO). A redirect to the footballer should be established or that footballer article should be moved here... Furthermore Wikipedia should not be a link farm to obscene/profane contents... Especially Wikipedia should not present such content itself... Homer Landskirty 11:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per WP:PORN BIO #7, there are several films on that page named after him (or at least one of his aliases, Jan Dvorak). Also, Wikipedia is not censored which I brought up on your talk page after I reverted idiotic censorship to cover up his crotch with ivy leaves.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Is "The Back Room" another alias or what? And it was "vine leafs"! Idiotic? Dont insult little helpless mentally special people! As so often the people who scream "censorship"/"discrimination" show the most censorship and discrimination in their own behaviour... I just want to uphold the Wikipedia regulations in concordance with US/Florida law. --Homer Landskirty 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Jan Dvorak is one of his alternate names, of which several films are listed under that name. And there are no Wikipedia regulations that are in accordance with US/Florida law. The picture will probably be all that'll be deleted, as a free alternative should be found. There is nothing at all wrong with the article for notability reasons to get it deleted and the footballer's article moved in its place. For WP:PORN BIO criteria, I give this and this as examples that he passes #7.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So u want an article "Jan Dvorak" or what? Do we agree, that there is no movie named "Pavel Novotny"? --Homer Landskirty 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, notability per WP:PORN BIO is established. The question of whether the page named Pavel Novotný should be about the pornstar, the footballer, or a dab page between the two is a separate issue. —An gr 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I would think that a dab is redundant for a stub and a fully fledged article.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Of course that redirect question comes up, as soon as this porn-star article has been deleted... --Homer Landskirty 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Bad faith nom as far as I care. I would speedy close this myself but don't recall template names... --Cat out 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bad faith"? Why? --Homer Landskirty 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Sigh... I feel so bad about the reactions on my deletion request now, so that I would like to withdraw it again (even though "Jan Dvorak" is just an obsoleted alias name, which does not reflect "Pavel Novotny" appropriately, so that theoretically my request was well founded -- just my mental condition does not allow me to proceed further). --Homer Landskirty 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:12Z

[edit] Amanda Swafford

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show.Mikeblas 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Third place on very popular reality series. Disease has given her extra publicity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acne Wash (talk • contribs).
Delete - second runner up (does that mean third or equal second?) on a reality show doesn't assert notability sufficiently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Budgiekiller (talk • contribs).
Strong delete per nom and per ample precedent. Being blind may make her an atypical game show contestant, but it doesn't make her a notable one. Xtifr _tälk 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Blindness plus ANTM plus multiple articles establishing presence in regional fashion plus national ad campaingn appearances just barely establish notability. Otto4711 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Here today, forgotten tomorrow. Ohconfucius 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Notable reality contestant. Elcda0 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Question - how more notable a reality contestant than all the thousands of others? Budgiekiller 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment She came in third place in one of the most popular competitive reality shows on television. I'm not saying all ANTM contestants are notable, but other contestants on ANTM have not received anywhere close to the amount of publicity that Amanda Swafford has received. Her condition (retinitis pigmentosa) has given her a fair amount of notability as well. I've added some external links to her page to justify my vote. Elcda0 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - thanks for your comment. Does the candidate really meet WP:N? Budgiekiller 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Yes, I believe the publicity she has received for both making it this far on the show and her condition have made her notable enough. However, I certainly understand where other voters would consider her non-notable. Elcda0 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I think this person clearly meets notability criteria: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles" Comixboy 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, third place on a very popular reality show, I think that's more than enough. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio's Pizza

Non-notable regional pizza chain. Mikeblas 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - does not assert sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP (and even gets beaten to top Google by several other Antonia's Pizza). Budgiekiller 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:CORP. Ter e nc e Ong 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete just being a pizza chain does not infer notability Hut 8.5 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete borderline spam. Hasn't even appeared on The Simpsons ;-) Ohconfucius 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam, mmmm, spam pizza....SkierRMH,09:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Now I'm all hungry. Khoikhoi 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beekeeping. Even if it's not a term used in the industry, may be a useful search term —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:15Z

[edit] Beekeeping helmet

Incorrect name for what I believe is called a hood. Material is already covered more thouroughly in beekeeper article. Currently nothing more than a dic def. Creator of this article nominated Welding helmet for deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Beekeeping which has a section dedicated to equipment used by beekeepers. This article will never need to exist in its own right. Budgiekiller 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirecting would be misleading because of the article's faulty name. We'd be better of creating a redirect at Beekeeping suit. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - fair enough. Then I change my vote to Merge and delete, if there's anything worth salvaging from the page. Budgiekiller 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in one form or another. Even if the illustration is more helpful than the text, this is a stub that begins at the beginning. No opinion on what the proper name for this equipment is; move it to the established one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- We already have it in one form at Beekeeping#Protective_clothing, as pointed out above. Uncle G 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Move to (new article) Beekeeping protective clothing (or similar - perhaps Beekeepers' Pr..). No such thing as a beekeeping helmet, but the article can act as a starting point for a more comprehensive article (which the wiki needs :)). I think that, at this stage, an article on the single part of equipment (the hood/veil) as separate from the rest is pointless. M a rtinp23 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My personal experience says that the name is faulty, too. The sources, such as Charles A. Saunders, this catalogue of beekeeping supplies, and Goodman and Riordan, say otherwise. I say go with the sources rather than my personal experience. ☺ However, it is more commonly called a "beekeeping hat and veil". Research confirms that, too. There's nothing here that isn't at Beekeeping#Protective_clothing, not even the picture, and no indication that a break-out Wikipedia:Summary style article is yet required for that section. Redirect to Beekeeping#Protective_clothing, as I was about to do. Uncle G 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced article with a defective title and almost no content. Adds nothing to Beekeeping. Edison 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Beekeeping#Protective_clothing, per Uncle G's sources showing that the title is worth keeping, but the article is not. AubreyEllenShomo 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I checked some beekeeping supply websites, and the term "Beekeeping helmet" doesn't appear to be a term used in the industry. From what I gather, protective clothing they wear consists of a "bee suit", along with a sun helment, and a "bee veil." I don't think a redirect for this term is necessary. Wavy G 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per AubreyEllenShomo The Fox Man of Fire 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] ABBYY PDF Transformer

Advertising for a product - delete. Big top 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's just an ad. --Lijnema 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as blatant spam (and now tagged as such) or simply Delete as non-notable product failing WP:SOFTWARE and WP:SPAM. Xtifr _tälk 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to List of Gundam SEED characters —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:27Z

[edit] Aisha (Gundam SEED)

Aisha (Gundam SEED) A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

Google returns only 880 results, when also searched for ‘Gundam Seed’ to avoid false hits.
Character is not important enough to be given a surname.
Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Cosmic Era list of characters. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
weak keep or merge: The article definitely has more information than the entry in Cosmic Era list of characters, so if the article gets deleted, the additional info should be merged there. Michael Drüing 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, move to Amanda and Rachel Pace per naming manual of style. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda & Rachel Pace

STRONG delete: They are way too young to be considered remotely notable as per Wikipedia standards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, move to Amanda and Rachel Pace, and Expand Age is not a valid deletion criteron. Notability from role as recurring cast member on The Bold and the Beautiful. To other editors, also note other age-related AFDs this user has put up: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trevor_&_Preston_Shores and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaia_and_Kendall_Huebner. (This really should have been a bundled nom.) Copysan 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not necessarily. These two and the Shores kids are young children, who may (I haven't seen their work) actually do some performing. The Huebners are babies, and cannot credibly be labeled as actors. Fan-1967 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Actors who have reoccuring roles on two soaps, seems notable to me. Age should not be a factor here. Deathawk 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Deathawk. --Oakshade 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axway

Non-notable corporation, does not meet WP:CORP (no printed media sources, no stock market index information), it looks like WP:AUTO and it almost sounds like WP:SPAM dockingman^talk 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As nominator. -- dockingman^talk 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as SPAM and so tagged. Ohconfucius 08:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biljana Plavšić

The article has very few sources, is of a contentious nature and disputed neutrality. Delete per WP:BLP. Localzuk^(talk) 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Was Presdient of one-time nation Republika Srpska (I've never seen a nation president up for AfD before) and noted war criminal. The nom seems to have a content/POV dispute, not a notability one. --Oakshade 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Keep Passes WP:BIO with flying colours. Note: I added the AfD notice to the article, since it hadn't been added there, which might explain why there aren't more comments here so far. --Lijnema 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so super sure anymore. Perhaps a delete and fresh start might be good, but wouldn't anyone who is POV pushing now find the article immediately again when it's re-created? Some kind of cleanup action would be nice, I think. --Lijnema 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I didn't realise any of it had worked... The tool I use to list things for AFD seems to have went crazy and messes things up. Anyway... My reason for listing this wasn't that the subject matter is non-notable, rather that deleting it and starting again would be a better chance of improving the article than trying to fight the pov warriors that would appear. Localzuk^(talk) 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, obviously notable individual, clean up the article if that's what it needs. NawlinWiki 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, a former head of state/government is always notable whatever it is. Just need some cleanup and some NPOVisation. Ter e nc e Ong 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per comments above - he's a former head of state! --SandyDancer 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. She easily qualifies as notable under WP:BIO; Bosnia and Herzegovina is a decentralized country and the presidents of its two component entities are clearly notable politicians. Deleting the entire article would not be an appropriate way to help achieve a neutral point of view; the article should be edited where it is rather than being taken out of service for remodeling. --Metropolitan90 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
speedy keep per above, & convicted war criminal frm recent war is notablity enough in its own right. re the pov dispute. delete & restarting will make no difference per above. deal with that issue thru mediating, locking etc yes its really boring but you will have to do that if you delete & restart. (grounds for WP:SNOW given nominator comments?) ⇒ bsnowball 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. AfD should not be used as a glorified "Cleanup" tag. JamesMLane t c 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Gundam SEED characters —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 22:29Z

[edit] Captain Todaka

Captain Todaka A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

Google returns only 760 results.
Character is not important enough to be given a full name.
Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Cosmic Era list of characters. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominique Ducharne (AfD subpage)

Article name misspelled, should have been Dominique Ducharme Big_iron 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the "Proposed deletion" deletion route would have been more appropriate. --Big_iron 14:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Dominique Ducharme assuming that is the correct spelling. --Oakshade 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete A redirect would lay down a precedent for other misspellings and typos 'Dominic Ducharme', 'Dominiq Du Charm', etc...you could go on for ever. It's just an honest typo by the creator who realised his/her mistake within three minutes of creating the page and created a new one with the correct name (see page histories of both pages). DrKiernan 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, it is precedent. See WP:REDIRECT. ColourBurst 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, not a useful redirect. People won't type wrongly usually. Ter e nc e Ong 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per Oakshade. Better to allow for people who aren't sure of spelling. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Doughnuts (Radio)

This is the fourth time someone has tried to dlete this but Duncan Doughnuts (Radio) works on the same radio show as Tim Shaw ,who has an article, and therefore should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable radio personality. No sources at all, let alone verifiable third-party sources. The fact that another person on the show has an article does not in any way imply that this person deserves an article too. In fact, it may indicate that the other personality, Tim Shaw, should also be nominated for an AfD though I don't have time to do so right now. --The Way 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO, needs reliable and independent sources. Does not assert any notabilit anyway. Ter e nc e Ong 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep As long as Tim Shaw has an article, according to logic, this article should be kept as I prieviously stated. This is virtually the only Duncan Doughnuts article on the internet also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete non-notable, "this is virtually the only Duncan Doughnuts article on the internet" is about as clear an indication of non-notability as one could ask for! Arguments about other articles are irrelevant (see WP:INN), but if someone wants to nominate the Tim Shaw article, I'm sure we can judge that one on its merits as well. Xtifr _tälk 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:BIO... and surfing to Mr. Shaw...SkierRMH,09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ You people make me sick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- Comment This is the second time Ford Prefect 2 has expressed his desired to keep this article. Not that we're voting. But if we were, that would be a duplicate, so I have added strike marks as a reminder. This editor's opinion of his fellow editors hardly seems relevant to the topic at hand. Which is to say, that's not much of an argument. Some might even consider it a personal attack. I choose to overlook that possibility, but suggest that an argument based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines might be more effective than one based on the delicacy of your stomach. :) Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Say that to my face ya limp noodle.

Delete, not notable -- Steve Hart 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if Juicy Lucy doesn't have a page, then Duncan should not have one.--Tim Shao 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete but I will create a redirect as there are still relevent incoming links. W.marsh 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Jackson (B&B)

STRONG delete: H. Jackson has been on the BB for THREE months in a very minor RECURRING role! That is NOT notable enough for a page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep and move to Harry_Jackson_(actor) a Recurring role in a national soap opera is notable enough to me.~~ Note to editors: BB == The Bold and the Beautiful Copysan 13:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This page is about a fictional character, and clearly his notability has not yet been established in the article. I did not read the article well enough. Sorry. Copysan 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move to Harry Jackson (actor). His role is not a one-off, but continuing, in a popular nationally broadcast TV series, establishing WP:BIO. He has been mentioned repeatedly in national media. B.Wind 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) I misread the article and thought it was about an actor by the name of Harry Jackson and not a Bold and the Beautiful character. I take no position as a result - but to say that the article is improperly named.B.Wind 04:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom -- Steve Hart 14:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaia and Kendall Huebner

STRONG delete: They are way to young to be considered notable as per Wikipedia standards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs).

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep and Expand~~Delete Age is not a valid deletion criteron. ~~Notability from role as recurring cast member on The Bold and the Beautiful.~~ To other editors, also note other age-related AFDs this user has put up: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trevor_&_Preston_Shores and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_&_Rachel_Pace. (This really should have been a bundled nom.) Copysan 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- True, babies are not notable. Did not know that they were babies, so changing to delete. I still maintain that a young age (as in older than a baby) is not a valid deletion criteron. Thanks for the clarification. Copysan 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing to expand. As Calton has so aptly remarked on these cases in the past, babies are not actors; they are remarkably realistic props. Fan-1967 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO, babies are usually not notable. Ter e nc e Ong 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and once these 'props' get too big (with extremely rare exception) they're replaced with 20 year old sullen "teenagers". SkierRMH,09:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, because the band was created in school less than a week ago. (Radiant) 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Riordan and the Band

Delete Non-notable, vanity page. MakeRocketGoNow 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Totally non-notable and vanity it would appear, with only this page appearing in Google. Budgiekiller 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacKenzie Mauzy

STRONG Delete: Mauzy is not notable enough to have a page. Only been on BB for FIVE months in a SUPPORTING role & she's not even 20 years old! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Week Keep Two roles in two major soaps. One seems like a main character, the other is a recurring. LOoks notable to me. (Age is not a valid deletion criteron. An embryo can be notable, if something notable happend to it) Copysan 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough, as B&B is the world's most popular show. Juppiter 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The subject appears notable. Hello32020 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Appeared numerous times in hugely popular soap operas. --Oakshade 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep B&B is the world's leading 1/2 hour daytime drama... she is cast... no matter what age, she is now one of the world's most watched actresses... period. --AB 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merja Taponen

Not notable. Article was deleted in fi-wiki. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Standing major party candidate (the Centre Party) in the upcoming Finnish parliamentary election. --Oakshade 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Council leaders of districts whos population of 15,517 are not generally considered notable. WIkipedia is not a soapbox for candidates standing in forthcoming elections. Ohconfucius 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- She is running in the national paliamentary election, not a local one. The size of parliamentary districts in Finland is irrelevant. --Oakshade 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - National parliamentary election, yes, so what? I fail to see how on earth this could be notable here if it's not notable on fi-WP. I mean, do you want to have an article on every person that ever ran for parliament, in any country, ever? Sheesh... --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 08:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Absolutely in synch with Neofelis here. No frigging point at all. There would be more candidates in national elections than we have rambot created articles on US counties by a very large margin, maybe even orders of magnitude larger. Think about it. Just under 200 odd countries. Say upwards of 100 seats in each national parliament (easily). Maybe 5-6 candidates contesting each seat on average. That would put us over 100 000 candidates to write an article on per election cycle. How many election cycles are there historically in each country? The mind genuinely boggles!!! -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, in Finnish Wikipedia over 77% of the voters thought that this politician is so non-notable that she doesn't deserve own article, that should already tell something. Totally unknown politician in her own country. ,,n 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Also-rans simply aren't notable. Now get out there and win an election for the Gipper. SkierRMH,09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music For Sport (AfD subpage)

Looks like an advertisement, apparently by a founder of the company. Mumby 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - looks like spam from a non-notable production company. B.Wind 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete pretty clearly spam and WP:COI. SkierRMH,09:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orange juice cd trick

This is possibly original research, and as such, Wikipedia is not an advice guide. SunStar Net 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete Some hybrid of WP:NOR WP:HOAX, maybe a bit of WP:NONSENSE for good measure. Creator proudly states that all his edits get reverted, and he's been banned once before for Colbert-elephant vandalism, so I'm having trouble coming up with WP:FAITH that this page should be kept except in the case of substantial WP:RS citation. Added later: having read further, the content is a load of factual errors, weasel-words to avoid having to support anything as being actually "correct", etc etc. DMacks 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete No words come to mind except "garbage." -- Kicking222 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, obvious hoax that might cause some poor user to wreck their computer. I wouldn't be opposed to a speedy delete g3 as pure vandalism. NawlinWiki 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom, WP:BOLLOCKS. Just instructions on how to ruin your CD drive by getting OJ in the gears. I think a speedy G1 or G3 is called for, too. Tubezone 15:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QuickSilver (project)

A non-notable academic project. Despite the claim of a large number of papers about this topic, I don't see how this in development software passes WP:NOT#CBALL Salad Days 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as prodder, reason was "University project with no assertion of notability". MER-C 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Despite papers going back fairly far, QuickSilver appears relatively new--all reports of it are in conference proceedings and technical reports. My keep would be stronger if it was in a peer-reviewed publication. Due to the fact that there are papers on the topic & you can download it, I don't really see how WP:NOT#CBALL can apply. The article describes QuickSilver as it exists now. --Karnesky 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems to be the start of something significant and is notable. --Buridan 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Buridan The Fox Man of Fire 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nominator's own argument admits that "there are a large number of papers aboutthe project" and wishes us to delete it on his unsourced claim that "it never got off the ground". Now that comment is a pretense of OR, and being used in a negative maqnner at that. DGG 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEO Services & Search Engine Optimization Company

Details about how a page must look like to rank well are always speculation and vary from SE to SE. See the Search Engine Optimization article for details. roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom and because nobody's ever going to search under this title. FreplySpang 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, how-to guide, fails WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete very strange article written in second person, mostly redundant with the far better (and referenced) article Search engine optimization. I suspect the real reason for its existence is to insert the URL at the end into Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a how-to-guide. We are not going to search like that. Ter e nc e Ong 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising vaguely cloaked as how-to, non-encyclopedic on both counts. Athænara ✉ 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam, bizarre spam, but spam nonetheless. SkierRMH,09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sato (Gundam character)

Sato (Gundam character) A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

Character is not important enough to be given a full name.
Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into list of minor characters. The Gundam categories have far too many articles on minor weapons, equipment, and characters, but instead of deleting them, they should be merged into lists. And trimmed, of course. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Missed the fact that it was already in the list of characters. Redirect unless any part of it should be smerged to the main list. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Cosmic Era list of characters. Danny Lilithborne 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The royal family book series

View single debate

Totally non-notable. I would say it's probably a hoax, except that the other page started by this editor explains that Main Hall was written by a sixth-grader, so it could be for real, just not published outside of his sixth-grade class. Quuxplusone 07:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to add the above article, the only other contribution by author Jeremy926 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), to this AfD. Deprodded by author. Tubezone 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Full disclosure being that I'd prod'ed the article and was just in the process of listing it here when I lost power for a moment, so my thunder has been stolen :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete No evidence that these are published books, or even books that actually exist. The title of the first one, "Fighting At the Risk of A Brother", gets no Google hits at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Let's see here. A sixth-grader (i.e., probably an 11-year-old) writes a series of books and wins a prize for the best book by a kid in his grade in his town. He is excited, and he or his family decide that he should write about the books on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, being the newest of newbies here, he is not familiar with our notability and deletion guidelines, so the new page gets prod'ed and then listed here on AfD the day it is created. Since the page is going to wind up being deleted, perhaps speedily so, this is bound to be disappointing to a younger person proud of his accomplishment. I would urge that we at least try to do it without saying there's "no evidence the books exist" or accusing the new editor of "vandalism" (it's not always apparent to a newcomer why "prod" tags can be deleted but AfD tags mustn't be). I recognize that the younger editors are subject to the same rules and guidelines and notability criteria as the rest of us, and this page shouldn't be kept, but there has to be a more humane way of dealing with this type of situation. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment First thing, I don't see anything that's been said here that's particularly cruel, second, there's plenty of other places where this can be posted, WP is hardly the only web site on the internet, third, it's going to be deleted anyway, what's the diff if it's done now or later, fourth, if you allow exceptions for 11 year old kids, every hoaxster is going to suddenly become 11 years old and make a façade of being a little kid being cruelly persecuted by the heartless cabal, fifth, if one is going to take up creative writing, one might as well get the fear of rejection thing out of the way early, and last, is this the longest run-on sentence you've seen today, or what? Tubezone 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to criticize my fellow editors' writing styles, run-on or otherwise, so I'll just say that if that sentence had appeared in The Royal Family Book Series, it wouldn't have won first prize. :) Substantively, I was by no means opposing deletion, just suggesting a gentler explanation to a new and enthusiastic editor. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, entirely nn. Deizio talk 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete both, either nn or a hoax. Note that the author, rather than participating in this discussion, has pulled AfD tags off The Royal Family Book Series 4 times. Tubezone 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and given the creator's history with this page, salt the earth. SkierRMH,09:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor & Preston Shores

Strong delete: These 2 are not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. I believe they are about 5 years old. R.J. Forrester is about 3 years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, move to Trevor and Preston Shores, and Expand Age is not a valid deletion criteron. Notability from role as recurring cast member on The Bold and the Beautiful. To other editors, also note other age-related AFDs this user has put up: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_&_Rachel_Pace and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaia_and_Kendall_Huebner (This really should have been a bundled nom.) Copysan 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep I agree; it's an actor(s) stub. — brighterorange (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge and delete is not really an option, as we need to preserve the contributer history if we do that. Merging can still be done, just turn this into a redirect. W.marsh 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Law Calcutta University

Non-notable department of a university. No evidence that it meets WP:CORP. But some universities worldwide do have separate articles for specific faculties or departments, like Harvard Law School, so I've brought this to AfD for debate.

I'm also nominating Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta for deletion too. Mereda 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment As another example from the category, I haven't nominated Department of Ship Technology at CUSAT because that does verifiably get national media coverage. Mereda 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge salvagable content with Calcutta University and Delete. No redirects necessary. utcursch | talk 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. WP:CORP is an entirely inappropriate set of criteria to apply in consideration of a university faculty. I do not accept the assertion that this faculty is not "notable"; in fact, a google search indicates it is. Its own website indicates it has a sizeable law library, which is significant. I cannot see why this law school is any less encyclopedic than any of the many other law schools that have articles. It may be a bit North America-centric to deminish the relevance of this school. Agent 86 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. In my opinion Google search doesn't indicate notability: For Department of Law Calcutta University [11] first two results are from University's website and the rest are about Department of Law of other universities. Searching with quotes[12] gives six results. Again, for Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta[13], first two results are from University's own website. The rest are about Department of Applied Physics of other universities. utcursch | talk 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge salvageable content of both Department of Law Calcutta University and Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta with University of Calcutta and Delete, as per utcursch. The departments are not sufficiently notable by themselves to warrant separate entries. HEL 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Smart After going through your suggentions I would like you to contribute in the article rather than to delete it. Being a department of such a vast University it should have its own Article by its own merit. As far as the detailing such as library, gym etc are concerned, I am in a process to update the article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartsaha (talk • contribs).

Comment Agent 86 makes a reasonable point about the law library, but I don't see independent evidence that Calcutta's is anything special - for example, the best in India is claimed to be at ILS Law College. And the Calcutta department of law doesn't feature in any Top-10 lists that I've seen. Nothing outstanding about these two Calcutta departments (or their libraries) is evident either from the latest NAAC accreditation report[14] even though the university as a whole gets a "five-star" top rating. Oh, if you want to know, Calcutta University has 58 departments. Mereda 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC),

Keep the article Merda is correct when he reffered to the NAAC. But why everyone is forgetting that a page in the Wikipedia is also something to boast about itself! Moreover, if unless and untill we make an effort to highlight the performance of the Department, not only the NAAC but its own students will also never come to know about its credentials. For almost last 100yrs the Department had given the society numerous emient legal hawks and I think now, when the University is really turning around from the typical mediocracy which once got associated with its image, we must put a thrust in this process by putting forwad its emient Departments.

My point is, if you squash an effort to make the department's presence over here, you yourselves who are advocating for systematic credentials, will thaw the Departments progress. Why can't we give our effort together and build this article with the datas collected from its current performance and hundred years of legal prescence?Smartsaha 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Let's see what we can do together. A lot of good work can be done to extend articles about higher education in India, without any conflict with Wiki policy on boasting and self-promotion. Start with looking at the Calcutta law alumni?? Or maybe we should continue a general discussion at the India project page. Mereda 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Kill Now

NN website, speedy removed by creator (although the speedy probably was incorrect). Nokillnow.com gets 1290 g-hits and gives no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. The page also needs to be monitored for WP:BLP issues. In earlier forms, it was somewhat of an attack page. --BigDT 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nothing here meeting WP:WEB as far as I can see. Speedy tag was perfectly correct; nothing, even giving every benefit of the doubt, that could be seen to be an assertion of notability, and A7 now includes webpages. The text that No Kil NOw is "the first web-based advocacy organization..." was added subsequent to tagging.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete orphaned linkspam. Its assertion of notability is not supported by independent references; in fact, all links are to the nokillnow.com site. B.Wind 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable at all. -- Steve Hart 14:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey dick

Procedual nomination: this article was not suitable for speedy deletion, so I'm taking this to AfD to deal with the issue of notability. Original nomination was for {{db-bio}}, but the sheer number of Google hits and considerable third-party coverage suggest a great degree of notability than expected. Has been moved to Casey Dick. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, expand. Newyorkbrad 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, expand. He is a pretty notable player. If we can get some information on him we can have a good article. Fortyniners9999 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Quarterback for a notable college football team makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This was found on the talk page of the article and was moved here

Delete. No indication if he is a first string QB or anything else to determine notability. --Walter Görlitz 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

end move

Keep Per WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Where one of the criteria is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." As such, he meets the criteria for notability which was established in the article. And it just says "played" not "first string". Nonetheless, he still was a starter for several games. --MECU≈talk 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone is willing to expand the article. м info 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Expand and keep - even though he is a backup college quarterback, he still meets WP:BIO per Mecu. B.Wind 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
He is a backup indeed, but he has played many games and may even have a career in the NFL.Fortyniners9999 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep played on nationally televised game, just barely squeeks past my notability standard... if he doesnt make the NFL i'll probably aim for deletion then. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Forbes

Incomplete nomination. Was prod'ed with rationale: "Non-notable blog writer who's mistaken WP for a link farm" and de-prodded with "Editor needs to learn how cites differ from a 'link farm'". Some other information can be seen in the page history, in particular regarding the {{autobiography}} tag. Tizio 14:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition: a much shorter version of the this article was created in September 2004; I presume it was deleted around that time, but that was too much time ago, so it's not in the deletion log. Discussion page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dennis Forbes. Tizio 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per prod. yandman 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any notability here. He's more notable than I am, but that's not saying much. Powers ^T 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ter e nc e Ong 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, Mr. Forbes, I DO know the difference between link farm and cites, and I know which side of the line you are on. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disc wobble

Non-notable copy-prevention implementation proposal. Article created by a spa. Only sources are self-published. yandman 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Copy protection. It exists, but isn't all that notable. Ohconfucius 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no redirect. "disk wobble" + "copy protection" yields exactly 12 Google hits; "disk wobble" has multiple meanings, resulting in a total of 652 Ghits. In the context of disk protection, "disk wobble" appears to be a neologism. B.Wind 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Ohconfucius, google returns hits from .edu and journals, there's spme attention even though it's not on the market. -- Steve Hart 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group of gamers, {{db-group}} and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AADL GT

Event of local interest only. PROD tag removed by article creator with no further comment. FreplySpang 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion per one of the creators justification for keeping: "between 300 and 400 people have watched". yandman 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete extremely minor event at a local library. What's next, articles on the spring book sale, Fine Forgiveness Friday, and children's story hour? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This in no way can be considered an "extremely minor" event, since for one thing, we have already prvoen that in the article by stating the number of people who have attended these tournaments, and second of all, we have many members who come from at least an hour or more drive from Ann Arbor, from places such as Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, which are quite long drives for something such as a gaming tournament, so there has to be a fair amount of significance to draw them here all they way from where they live. Also, for someone who has such awards and accolades from Wikipedia, I find your scathing sarcasm disappointingly low. Tcoveney 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no importance or notability asserted in the article -- Whpq 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you compare this article to a bake sale then you should compare it to the first bake sale because that is what this is like. This event is seen and read about by many people and is therefore a significant contribution to Wikipedia.

Delete ridiculously written article about tournament. There's precedent for video game tournaments being non-notable as well (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MELEE-FC). Danny Lilithborne 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike pinto

Contested speedy; artist with one album and a claim to have been on a national tour. See article talk page. Doesn't seem notable enough to me, but bringing here for discussion. NawlinWiki 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. yandman 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Keep working hard, kid, and you'll make it to Wikipedia. In the meantime, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Powers ^T 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nice music, like the guitar intro to "Tricky Nicky", of course subject is nowhere near meeting the standard of WP:BAND. Get a couple reviews/features, or better yet wait for your fans to write it. Darkspots 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Just to point this out, i am not Mike Pinto, that is not in anyway my music, and i do not take any credit for it. I am just a huge fan of his music and was suprised to see he did not have a wikipedia page, so i took the liberty to make him one, as for reviews, i posted some on the discussion page of the mike pinto, and below

There are numerous reviews at this link: Cdbaby.com reviews Here are just a few examples:

5 stars Reviewer: Sammy Snead / Rasta Roots Radio The first time I heard Mike Pinto’s solo Acoustic album, I was immediately intrigued by the passion and soul pouring from each song. This seven song demo cd is extremely authentic, pure and quietly epic. It was the top music investment to date in the 21st century, until now with Mike Pinto's debut album “Little District”. Produced in the heart of Philly with legendary hometown artist/producer Tim Sonnefeld from the band Townhall, this cd instantly raises the bar for any musician attempting to drop a flawless cd from start to finish. Mike shines with his remarkable story-telling songs such as "Bills Song" "Chilean Lover" and his instant classic "Tricky Nicky". This is the rare reggae/rock/latin/ska/dub release that's both gripping and touching. We all owe him a great amount of gratitude for giving the new music world hope.

5 Stars Reviewer: Mike from KY I am an avid collector of Reggae/Island/Party/Feel Good music. I own over 1000 CD's and Mike Pinto is one of the Best artist in Music today and one of the best CD's I own. He will definitely cross over to the mainstream audience once his music is discovered.Mike Pinto is making the best music available anywhere. If you haven't heard of his music you are really missing out on some of the most intelligent feel good music that is available. Don't hesitate and buy music from Mike Pinto and support creative music at its finest. Mainstream bands don't even hold a candle to him. Listen to it and you will become addicted to some really fantastic music with awesome feel good reggae vibes with a twist.One of the best song writers in the industry today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riptorfire (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality does not equal notability. Mike from KY wrote: "He will definitely cross over to the mainstream audience once his music is discovered." If that's such a certainty, then you can write an article on him when that happens. Until then, he's not notable. Powers ^T 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Riptorfire, these CDBaby.com reviews don't meet the broad standard of what a "published work" is. What we're looking for here is something that meets the standards discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Same deal with the national tour. If you can show how the tour was reported by multiple reliable sources, that could work, but a quick google search says no dice on that. Did the single chart, as Powers asked? If you can show us that the single charted, that could provide a keep for the article.

Just to note this one more time, a deletion finding here is no impediment to Pinto's eventual sucess or any sort of statement about his musical ability. People go to myspace.com to find new music to listen to, not wikipedia. The notability standards of Wikipedia are there to make the encyclopedia more useful for general readers, not to provide some sort of arbitrary stumbling block designed to impede the upward rise of bands. Darkspots 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I see what you are saying, i think what i will do is copy all the coding, and maybe wait to see if Mike can hit a little more mainstream, because i reviewed the criteria, and while i do greatly enjoy his music, he really does not meet enough of the criteria. I believe it is ok to take this down, but maybe i can resurrect the article when Mike gets his name out there a little more, and meets Wikipedia's standards. Riptorfire

That's a good idea. You can keep the text in your User space if you like (for example, at User:Riptorfire/Mike Pinto. Powers ^T 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment ok i put it in my user space, so im all taken care of, hopefully mike can get his name out there so i can resurrect the article Riptorfire
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- Steve Hart 14:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Some keep votes were explicitly "weak keep," others dependent on sources being provided, but none have been during the course of this AfD and I think it safe to say none will. Chick Bowen 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of collective nouns for people

I freely acknowledge that collective nouns exist -- gaggle of geese, murder of crows, and all that. However, this particular list appears to be filled with nothing but spurious and/or joke collective nouns. For example, a group of actors is called a "cast"? Not hardly; only if they're all working on the same production as actors. A "faffing" of geeks? Come on. Please see also the recently-closed-as-delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for objects and concepts. Powers ^T 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete for many reasons. Its original research, much of it is wrong and some of it seems to be a hoax. Furthermore, something like this would be more appropriate, if it were actually true, for Wiktionary. --The Way 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete some of these are legitimate, but it has essentially the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for objects and concepts and invites OR. — brighterorange (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- I don't think it's cool to treat Wikipedia as a repository for humour. This is not the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Is there another Wiki for this sort of thing. And by the way, how come "a Wunch of Bankers" isn't on it? Reyk _YO! 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete THis is an impossibly long list. Just nip it in the bud Cnriaczoy42 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the article and remove the chaff. The article began seriously enough, but it has accumulated some entries along the way. Revert to the best version and resume editing from there. Fg2 07:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A proposal Can I ask everyone to remove five entries that they don't like? Then we can reevaluate it. Fg2 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep — This list has some cruft that needs to be removed, but it is valuable. Val42 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fg2 FirefoxMan 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information and all that jazz. Deathawk 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep: I think such a list is justified in Wikipedia, as there are a number of other similar articles: List of collective nouns for non-human mammals, List of collective nouns for birds, List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians, List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants. However, the entirety of this is uncited. I propose a quick google check on each term, delete anything clearly made up or non-notable, and find academic sources for anything left standing.—Perceval 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to a Wiktionary category and delete. Wiktionary collects words and groups them just fine, why do we need to do it here too? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bald vulture

I have notability concerns about this band, but it isn't speedy deletable due to the assertation of tours with notable bands made. My main concern is the lack of sources (therefore failing WP:RS and WP:V) and the fact that the article stinks of WP:OR. M a rtinp23 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Their record label doesn't even have an article. And it's written horrendously as well. Powers ^T 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this appears to be a copyvio as it looks to be a cut and paste from this site. Which is probably a press release so we've likely also got problems with WP:COI. -- Whpq 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete copyvio. It's also a dead end article. B.Wind 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn, failing WP:MUSIC. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom and passes the Glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,09:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G11 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indigo Consulting

Advert for non-notable company created by user:Indigo01. -- RHaworth 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:CORP guidelines. Powers ^T 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:CORP, advertisement, possible conflict of interest/vanity. Ter e nc e Ong 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as G11. JChap2007 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Phillip Coleman

This was prodded about a week ago, but I'm uncomfortable just deleting it. There might be something salvageable here. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the article: his book is self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fluff piece about a non-notable subject. Original author was Razor7, which coincidentally matches the domain for the subject's Web page. Fails WP:BIO. Caknuck 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. Valrith 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete BIO and probably copyvio. SkierRMH,09:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Canadian

I believe this article's topic to be something that neither requires nor merits a Wikipedia article. I believe that the current low quality of the article (which seems to be not much more than a recitation of demographic statistics with the addition of a single paragraph of not-fully-relevant history) does not, as some might suggest, mean that the article should be improved. I believe, instead, that it demonstrates that a Wikipedia-quality article cannot be written on this topic. The poor article quality is, of course, just a symptom of the lack of encyclopedic nature of this topic. First, I believe that this article has been created to bolster a school of thought which believes that this identity exists. An article on that sort of racialized thinking might be valid, of course, but that's not the same thing as creating an article which should only exist if you buy into their belief system.

As an example of the sort of confused thinking that must have lead to the creation of this article, the "Ethnic group" infobox template has been used. However, this confounds the concept of a skin colour and an "ethnicity". Ethnicity, as reported by Statistics Canada (for example), includes most national identities that can be seriously considered. "Quebecois" (apologies for lack of accents) is included, as is "Canadian", "Irish", "Lebanese" and "Ethiopian". THOSE are ethnicities (or at least, they're worthy of Wikipedia articles, because they clearly encompass a set of people who understand themselves by the label. However, the set of people who understand their own ethnicity to be "White Canadian" is very different from the set of people described by the label.

Finally, I will head off the most obvious and useless argument - which has been used both in the article and on its talk page. In fact, the first sentence of the article is, I believe, nothing more than an attempt to justify the very existence of the article. Any article that must do that is on shaky ground.) The argument basically says that because StatsCan counts it, it must be a valid article. This is an irrelevant point, as StatsCan counts numerous things that are not worthy of articles - can you picture an article with the title "Single Family Dwellings in Kenora" ??? AshleyMorton 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Can I expect to see White American and White British nominated for deletion as well? - Eron ^Talk 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Certainly not by me. I don't believe that I'm someone who can comment on those groups' existence within the milieu of the countries in question. However, I would certainly have the immediate reaction that the concept of "White American" certainly is much more present in the mass media of that country than the concept of "White Canadian" is in Canadian mass media, making "White American" more article-worthy than "White Canadian". AshleyMorton 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment In response to Ashley Morton, I agree that the term confounds color and ethnicity. I primarily consider the term to imply the physical description of light-colored people which would not be an ethnicity, but my sources I used for citation said it meant European ancestry. In the sense that white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry, white is in fact an ethnicity. I consider the "single family dwelings in Kenora" to be a poor analogy. Surely, not everything should be an article on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia considers ethnic groups to be noteworthy. User:AshleyMorton claim "Canadian" is noteworthy enough to warrant an article, but aren't recent Chinese Canadians culturally or if I may ethnically different from European descent Canadians with a long history in Canada? If your definition Ashley Morton of ethnicity revolves around history and culture, European Canadians have a separate culture from other Canadian groups like Aboriginal Canadians.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete—"White Canadian" is only defined by StatsCan by what it is not: not a member of a category of visible minority, as defined by the Employment Equity Act.[15][16] StatsCan does not associate white with any ethnic origin.[17] The article's reference to Latin America comes from the assumptions made for one specific labour study, which don't belong here: they are being used by some editors to add an unjustified white European slant to this article. Furthermore, the categories are self-reported and may be written in, so the definitions of ethnic groups are loose, and not encyclopedically defined. Some of the material in this article regarding ethnic origins belongs in Demographics of Canada or ethnic groups of Canada, but there is no justification for or definition of "white Canadian", by skin colour. Associating StatsCan's category of "white" with any ethnic group is original research. —Michael Z. 2006-12-04 20:54 Z

Keep--In response to Mzajac, a defintion defined by exclusion is still a clear defintion. If a White Canadian is a Canadian who is not a visible minority and we know who Statistics Canada considers a "visible minority", then we know who is defined as a White Canadian. It is true that anybody of any ancestral background could fill in the White Canadian category on the Canadian Census, but this is true of most censuses. The US Census has clear racial definitions, but on census day people mark whatever box they feel like.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There is a precedent for similar articles, such as Black Canadian, White American, White British, White Australian, African American, Asian American, Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, Asian Canadian, and Arab American. Either they — and all similar articles — should all stay, or they should all be deleted. There is no logical justifiation for singling out White Canadian for deletion. Spylab 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the eventual outcome, this argument doesn't hold. If an article were created called "White Newfoundlander", for instance, it would be even more tenuous than this one. How about "Iberian Canadian" (to lump together people from Portugal and Spain", or "North Asian Canadian" - my point is, simply because you can categorize a group of people and put them under a single label, does NOT mean that that categorization holds equal value to the encylopedia project as all other groups. "Chinese Canadian" - of course! That has to stay - it's a group with many elements of common history, identity, etc., etc., etc. Most relevantly, most members of the group see that as group to which they belong. I and many other white Canadians do not see "White Canadians" as a *group* to which we belong. Similarly, we clearly should not have an article for "Canadians who own umbrellas", because that group does not see itself as a group, and even though it has common elements (nationality, umbrella-owning-status). So, yes there IS logical justification for "singling out" White Canadian - it does not share the other common traits or historical identities that ethnic or cultural groups that have legitimate articles share. AshleyMorton 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By that logic (which I don't think holds water), then White American, White British, White Australian, White people and any similar articles should be deleted as well. You have not explained why white Canadian should be singled out for deletion.Spylab 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, to be clear, I'm not using a categorization to disagree with the existence of white Canadian. I'm simply arguing that it, as a group, as an "identity", doesn't meet the sort of criteria to be in the same place as many of those other ones you list. I suspect that if I knew more about the circumstance, White Australian might also be something of which I'd support the deletion, but that's key - I don't know. I DO, on the other hand, know about the circumstances of fair-skinned people in Canada. I am one, and I know many. In short, they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour. At that point, it is either labelling for the sake of labelling (at which point my "umbrella" example is relevant) OR it is a strategy to foist this identity upon the world, as if it is an existent subject. That, I believe would be Wikipedia inventing the world, not Wikipedia describing the world. ...and that's not okay. AshleyMorton 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthering this point, if these other articles are equal in quality and inanity to White Canadian, they should be deleted. There's no onus to be "fair" and allow every insipid article to spawn a thousand copycats because it's slipped under the radar. --MattShepherd 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement "they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour" applies just as much to White American, White British, White Australian and white people. There is absolutely nothing that makes the situation of white Canadians any different. For example, even in the UK, where it can be argued that whites are the indigeonous population (instead of immigrants), there are differences between English, Scottish, Scots-Irish (in Northern Ireland), Welsh and Cornish cultures. There are even differences in culture within those groups (such as south and north England), different economic classes, different subcultures and other differences that lead to a non-homogoneous culture. Spylab 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. From a quick look at the respective articles, it appears that "white British" and "white Australian" are both defined by a census question about ethnicity, and the British article specifically addresses the cultural groups. In contrast, the Canadian census does not mention "white" at all in the question about ethnic origin, only in a separate question about visible minority status—race and colour are separate variables. Although we're trying to clean it up, some editors are conflate the two concepts based on orthogonally-opposed data variables, to paint their own picture of a white "Canadian race", completely insupportable by the data. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 00:37 Z

Keep. The article is a mess, but several editors are working to clean it up. There is some verifiable statistical data that can be referenced. This is as legitimate a topic as the other [[Colour/Ethnicity - Nationality]] articles noted above. - Eron ^Talk 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm repeating myself, but it is simply not the case that all "groups that can be labelled" are legitimate groups. You need to actually believe that THIS one is legitimate. Second, verifiable statistical data: As I've said, there are verifiable statistical data about many things - "homeowners in Moose Jaw" or "teenagers in Yellowknife". That doesn't mean they deserve articles. They need to be justified in their own right. AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Black Canadian should also be deleted(along with White American etc...). You could not keep one and delete another. TestPilot 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can keep one and not the other. If one is an identifiable - well - identity, with common history, socialization, and a feeling of commonality, while the other one is a label and nothing but a label, then of course you can distinguish between them. That's like saying there needs to be an article on "Italians in Canada before 1400" because we could write an article on "aboriginal people in Canada before 1400" - Sure, it's equal, but the facts intervene and inform us that one doesn't exist. Of course, I'm not saying there are no white Canadians - I'm saying that you can't off-the-cuff generalize from one article of a certain type to another of the same type - you must actually consider the validity of each article seperately.AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete: I don't think the overwhelming majority ethnicity is an "ethnicity" that needs an article. The nature of the majority is that it's the default culture. Will the authors also diligently set about creating articles on "Flying Birds," "Walking Mammals" and "Two-Legged People"? --MattShepherd 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. "White Canadian" is a meaningless label, of at best suspect POV status, which does not define a unified group that has any common history, culture or social context unique to the circumstance of being white. Accordingly, this article can never be anything more than a questionable POV fork of Demographics of Canada; there's nothing encyclopedic that could possibly be written about any sort of unified White Canadian culture that crosses ethnic boundaries. The comparison to Black Canadian is invalid; there is an objective and encyclopedic Black Canadian identity, history and social context that is shared across the various black ethnicities. Minority identities are encyclopedic, because they are bound together by circumstances unique to being a minority group; privileged majority groupings simply do not have that kind of commonality. Bearcat 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with previous statement. CJCurrie 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Just because blacks are a minority in Canad doesn't mean they all have a common homogoneous culture or history, any more than whites have a common homogoneous culture and history. Black Canadians have a wide variety of ancestries and cultures. The argument that the Black Canadian, White American, White British, White Australian and White people articles should stay, but White Canadian should be deleted, has not been presented with logic or consistency. Spylab 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For all the differences that exist among the various black ethnicities, there is a common experience and history defined by the state of being black: slavery, racism, being on the losing end of white privilege, police harassment, racial profiling, Driving While Black. Caribana. George Elliott Clarke's Africadia. Michaëlle Jean. And on, and so forth. For all the variety within it, an objective culture does exist which can be and is labelled "Black Canadian", whereas "White Canadian" culture is a meaningless abstraction that doesn't objectively exist, and can only be created by cobbling together bits of demographic data that have no connection to each other, no shared experience, no applicability to any cultural terminologies used in the real world, and no remotely encyclopedic reason to be lumped together as a single group. Wikipedia's job is to reflect terms that are actually in use in the real world, to write about and reflect topics that other sources have already deemed encyclopedically significant. "Black Canadian" fits that criterion; "White Canadian" does not. European Canadian is a much better approach to this — while I'm still not sure there's that much that can be written about the topic, and would therefore still have to think very carefully about whether it was keepable as written, the title comes much closer to reflecting the distinctions that actually exist in Canadian culture as defined by the external sources that determine the encyclopedic value of a WP article. Bearcat 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The term "White Canadian" is a neologism without widespread currency. - SimonP 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete in favour of new European Canadian article per prevalence of the term (see Talk:White Canadian#FYI for Google hits, but these must be read in light of Bearcat's comments in the same section). Deet 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per Bearcat and SimonP -- Jeff3000 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per cogent arguments provided by AshleyMorton, Bearcat and SimonP. In the census, people get counted as "White" if they do not identify themselves as members of a visible minority and do not identify themselves as aboriginal. At best a dictionary definition, better, just a census definition. Luigizanasi 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a "white Canadian," this article is just annoying and just seems to be an outlet for latent and not-so latent racists, or worse, colour-blind liberals who think that we're all colour-coded equally. Nothing useful can be accomplished here that can't be accomplished better at European Canadian.Bobanny 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Surely it is possible to vote in a deletion discussion without attacking those who are attempting in good faith to contribute to the article in question? I'm not sure that I enjoy being called either a racist, or worse than a racist. - Eron ^Talk 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for painting all the editors of the article with the same brush. The article itself has racist undertones in my opinion, regardless of the world view of its editors, which I find offensive and is why I think it should be deleted.Bobanny 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally share your concerns about the possible racist undertones, and I have been hopeful that they can be removed without deleting the article. The unwillingness of some editors to consider a non-racial approach has me reconsidering my keep vote. - Eron ^Talk 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep or merge. My first instict was to go with delete, but since White British and White American exist (and are not on AfD), deleting this would be inconsistent. Either delete them all or keep them all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete this article, redirect and merge any relevant text into the demographics articles. I have refrained from voting so far, due to my initial involvement in removing related material from Canada and Canadian English. However, taking into account the response to attempts to clean up the article, I cannot help but think that it will be a continual source of problems, requiring constant monitoring and revision. The core details would be easier to maintain if they are "protected" by incorporation into the larger context of a Canadian demographics article. A stand-alone page about this specific topic is hard to justify given the lack of solid, verifiable information, and the potential for abuse. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - A poor, racist, incorrect and inconsistent article on a nonexistent ethnic group. michael ^talk 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

KeepThe arguments for deleting are essentially an attempt to suppress WP coverage of a political tendency. DGG 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - the way it's presented, it looks like this is an actual group, rather than a "belief in a group". I'm happy to see (and contribute to) an article which discusses various colour- and race-based analyses of Canadian society. ...but that's different from simply presenting the article, at which point it looks like the only NPOV stance is that the group exists. AshleyMorton 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep What is all this business? Many nations have articles about the white people living therein. This article seems to be a reasonable quality to me, and I do not agree with its deletion. Lofty 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

It's a group of people in Canada. People of European ancestry. It is a relevant article related to Canada, and is not "low quality", it is similar content in all other "ethnic group" articles. If you delete this, why not delete "Chinese Canadian" or "French American"? You don't have much of a reason why you would like it deleted rather then critisizing its quality. But it shows accurate facts and percentages etc., and seems pretty fine to me. Don't see any reason for it to be deleted. Are you a racist ? A racist American could delete "African American" then. "Not relevant" what are you talking about, it is the majority ethnic group in Canada, how is that not relevant? I think maybe you are scared it is racist, or something like that, but either way your personal opinion does not matter 100% and you should focus on wether the article can benefit any reasercher, or wether it is relevant. It IS relevant. If they have an article on "African Canadians", who are around 4 % of the Canadian population I believe, why on earth can't there be an article for "White Canadians", the largest ethnic group in Canada? I fail to see an adequate reason for deletion, rather than some sort of personal grudge. RyanRP 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Michael Z., the point you just made would mean that all the ethnic group pages should be deleted, because that's basically what they all are. And the "Latin American not counted" part was always there, on the original version. Seriously, with your argument, that means we should delete EVERY ethnic group page for EVERY country on Wikipedia, because what you say is "wrong" with this article is what every ethnic group article is. Information about a certain group of ethnicity in a country, what percentages they are in population, and the like. 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And eron, if you say that, then lets have "African American", or "Indian British" deleted aswell. Seriously, "White", no matter what your personal opinion is, DOES exist. there are WHITE , PEOPLE. They are REAL they EXIST. every group of people "really exists" but white people"?? That certainly isn't true! This is obviously some sort of personal grudge RyanRP 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was implying by my comment. I was not suggesting deletion of those pages; I was rather suggesting that if the concept of "White" is strong enough to support them, then there may be a case for a "White Canadians" article as well. That wasn't a vote to delete. - Eron ^Talk 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

well I just added something to the page that should clear up everyones concerns. Check it out, definitions of White Canadian I added it, hopefully that fixes your problems ``` RYAN RP

You know what people, you're bringing up some OK points, so therefore based on your theories, Black Canadian should be deleted aswell. RyanRP 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. "Black Canadian" actually exists in the real world as a term actually in use to define a cultural grouping. Whether you agree with the cultural value of that grouping is irrelevant; the term actually signifies a specific grouping recognized in verifiable sources as having a specific cultural context. "White Canadian" is not a term used in the real world to signify any specific or unique culture shared across multiple ethnicities. Bearcat 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - much of the disputed material is now in a new article, European Canadian. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Girvin

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]}}

Writer of the entry says that he is a respected political and humor writer on the campus of Boston College, however I fail to see how the subject passes WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. JRHorse 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - columnist for a college newspaper is insufficient -- Whpq 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. Frexes 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I think it is important to recognize the achievements and scholarship of college students especially if they have made a significant impact to their school also it notes that he is a humor writer for collegehumor and a political writer for his paper. DMDA54 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — DMDA54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Hello32020 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Hello32020. Wikipedia is not ego-boo for well-meaning people. --Dhartung | Talk 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Closing admin: don't overlook the linked images. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I am avid collegehumor reader and fondly remember James Girvin. Besides, it's nice to see a few entries on this website that don't take themselves too seriously. Co1dnovemberrain 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Co1dnovemberrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Keep - subject has made significant contributions to struggle for racial and sexual orientation based equality on Boston College Campus, as reported in various national newspapers Ddgdl 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)— Ddgdl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Without James Girvin in my life I would cease to be able to have a smile upon my face. He is a warm and funny human being who touches all that he speaks to. If you are to remove him from this website you might as well removes Gandhi, Moses, and Jesus Christ. Do not make a horrible mistake and remove recognition from a person who surely could touch many lives. Thank you. Peace to all.Hughesbi 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)— Hughesbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:11 6 December 2006 UTC (UTC).

James Girvin WikiWebGeneral 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. — WikiWebGeneral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I feel that any person should be entitled to a page as long as the page is useful to others who may find what that person does interesting and useful as long as these arent personal adds or jokes. Why does allowing James Girvin to have a page hurting anyone. You allow people who have done zero for society like Paris Hilton to have a page but you don't allow good people have one. — JDD1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 14:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

That Paris Hilton has an article is not a reflection of her value to society. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not based on whether a person is good, or whether it isn't "hurting anyone". There are blogs and free web hosts for singing the praises of someone. Wikipedia is not a free web host.--Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the notability guidelines and I feel that this subject fits very nicely within the bounds of Wikipedia. I understand why Paris Hilton is here and I was just making a point much like the James Girvin Article. The article is not singing the praises its just giving information about a topic that a lot of people want to know about.JDD1985 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete article completely unencyclopedic. In my mind, the jury's out as to whether the subject is any more deserving of a Wikipedia article than any of the 30 other James Girvins that were unearthed by Google search... but even if he were, this article would need to be scraped clean and started anew. Right now I remain unconvinced that a regular column on a college newspaper and a pair of blogs raises him to the bar of WP:BIO. B.Wind 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep- Writer is notable contributor to significant college website (CollegeHumor).Shinealight 13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it and article reads more like an encyclopedia article. I think with these changes the article should be kept . JDD1985 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC) — JDD1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, not even close in meeting any of the notability guidelines. -- Steve Hart 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, indication of a consensus to merge if anyone wants to pursue that. W.marsh 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Grove Fire Department

Contested speedy. I appreciate the project is trying to improve the coverage of fire services in Wikipedia. However, going as far as introducing non notable local depts and listing individual staff seems, to me, to be going being what is encyclopaedic into what should be dedicated works Nuttah68 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Oak Grove Fire Department is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the fire service around the world. As it is part of a global WikiProject this article should not be deleted. Recommend to keep article. Additionally, it is considered common courtesy to inform the author of an article when their article has been marked for deletion. This was not done by the requestor but I have now informed the author. --Drew30319 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I am one of the primary editor/members of WikiProject Fire Service and although I tagged the article as a member of the Project, to be honest I see no value in it. I tagged it because I attempted to tag all fire service related articles, and plan to leave it to others to make them noteworthy. I have tagged a number of articles which I even plan to nominate for deletion or merger. They are tagged as a way to categorize them, not as a way to state their importance to the project. Maybe down the line I will create importance levels, but I have yet to do so. --Daysleeper47 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete (sadly) per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into the article on the town it's in. Fire depts are inherently notable, but generally should be part of the community article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge in a greatly shortened form into the articleOak Grove, Arkansas (population 376). Article: 1,603 words (exclusive of AfD text). I propose Edison's Rule: "The article on the fire department should not have more words than the population of the town it protects." (With the correlary,: "It may be considerable shorter.") With the very highest respect for all firemen. Edison 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is not in Oak Grove, Arkansas, If you read both articles there are highlighted maps that locate them. Also a town of 376 could not justify 3 stations. Dimitrii 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. All towns are notable regardless of their size - and as a municipal function, there's no reason to keep Fire departments of said communities. (And "Edison's Rule" sounds arbitrary and silly - Wikipedia is not paper, so why would we set limits on the length of any article??)Highfructosecornsyrup 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as this department is certainly non-notable. I appreciate the goals of the WikiProject, but if this is the product I strongly urge reconsideration of how to go about meeting those goals within existing Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NOT Does not state "Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information" but rather "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." There is an important distinction between the two and obviously it is a miscellaneous collection of information. They key distinction is indiscriminate and if you look through the list of how Wiki currently defines this you'll note that this does not apply to this article. It is not a: (1)List of FAQs, (2)Travel Guide, (3)Memorial, (4)Instruction Manual, (5)Internet Guide, (6)Textbook/annotated text, (7)Plot summary. Drew30319 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Pulaski County, Arkansas or another more appropriate locality article per WP:LOCAL, these locality articles could use some more content. JYolkowski // talk 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Edison. Every town has one, and nearly all are less notable than the town it protects. This town has a population of 376. Ohconfucius 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge highly edited parts into Pulaski County, Arkansas. Not notable by itself but of use to the county article. Dimitrii 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am the author of this page. This page is NOT about the town "Oak Grove" with a population of 376. If the "editors" would do more research they would know this. The town they are referring to is in northern Arkansas. The Oak Grove Fire Department referenced in this article is located in central Arkansas, in Pulaski County. I believe this article is a fair and true representation of the Department as a whole, as I am a member of it. As for it's notewortyness, who is the judge of that. I beleve it is noteworthy to those who are affected by it, which is more than 4,000 (not 376). Also, it is a good information article for other small fire departments that may have some questions about how to structure themselves. On a free encyclopedia how can anyone suggest deletion of an article that is both founded in fact, and written neutrally? I believe this is an abuse of deletion abilities. If the creators of Wiki were so concerned about every article being of particular interest to everyone in the world it would stand to reason to accept all (rule-abiding) articles they could get. I certainly have no interest in an article about the Pickwick Lake Dam, however I venture to guess that those persons in that area do. Therefore I wouldn't suggest deletion of that article just because I do not have a personal interest in it. Please realize that this is not a print resource, and as such it's resources, while finite, are large enough to preclude this type of wanton disregard for smaller towns in not-so-popular states. I urge you to remove this deletion tag and keep this article. I have no problem editing it if that is required. However, please give the people of this Community their due, let this page stay. Thank you. Joe.
Delete since there is no mergeable content (sourced, interestingly encyclopedic?), and the fire department is non notable (as most fire departments are, no matter where they are located). Wikipedia is also WP:NOT a how-to guide, and the article has no WP:V sources to indicate the notability of the fire department. Fram 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete according to the author of the page--this is a village of 4000 people. No assertion that this fire company is notable in any particular way, & none of Joe's arguments provide any. DGG 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disassociation-Association

There is no indication that this is a notable drinking game. It is unsourced. The talk page says that it survived a previous AFD, but in fact it was a part of a mass nomination of non-notable drinking games in which individual renomination was recommended instead. Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deli nk (talk • contribs).

Delete, nn drinking game. Deizio talk 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless reliable sources are cited prior to expiration of discussion period. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Unverifable. SkierRMH,09:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chi Iota Pi

The article was prodded and deleted already but the deletion is contested at WP:DRV, so I'm sending this here to establish community consensus. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Local sorority that's been around for two years. Template claims two undergratuate chapters, but no evidence of a second chapter could be found on the organization's Web site. Without proof of another chapter, then this would seem to be a non-notable student group. Caknuck 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Completely POV; no sources given; little (if any) notability, as it's a sorority at a single campus; obvious COI issues. -- Kicking222 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete May be non-notable, pov and WP:COI. Hello32020 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep If the soroity claims that it is in existence then I feel that it should be left here but allow them to add a source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMDA54 (talk • contribs).
Delete non-notable (even if the two extra chapters were proven to exist, I don't think sufficient notability would be shown). It's simply too new to have gained any real notability, as is shown by the complete lack of coverage by any reliable sources (or any external sources at all, for that matter). No verifiability at all! On top of that, the article is badly written, blatant ~~vanity~~ "conflict of interest" with heavy POV issues. Xtifr _tälk 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete This article was obviously written by Chi lota Pi and seems to have no real information in it. FirefoxMan 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as COI, POV, and XIΠ. SkierRMH,09:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Psychology of Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm

Prodded as original research and as an essay. There's not enough context for me to make heads or tails of it. -- Merope 19:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete the style strongly suggests that it's a copyvio from someplace (the odd little "(5)" in the first sentence for example), but there's no context provided, no indication of what (if anything) the article is supposed to mean or be about. Might be original research, might be hoaxalicious, surely isn't worth saving. Xtifr _tälk 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spurious original - reads like a B- essay. SkierRMH,09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LyricWiki

non notable. created in April 2006. pr WP:WEB. Elwosmgh 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment How can a wiki whose sole purpose is to provide lyrics exist? Wouldn't all of the content be copywritten? -- Kicking222 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- A gedankenexperiment, if you will: This article "could exist" as long as someone nominated it for deletion. Likewise, this wiki "can exist" until someone tells RIAA about it. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - appears to be a large wiki. Some notable music players (incl. Amarok implement direct support for it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - As you said: WP:WEB.
Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  - This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
- Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't.
- The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
- The site was DreamHost Site of the Month in April 2006 which seems pretty notable since DreamHost is the 23rd largest hsot in the world, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month
It definitely is a large, and commonly used site... see wiki stats

-SColombo 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable as (or more notable than) other wikis like Armeniapedia, WikIran, and Wipipedia. --Will Mak 050389 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: A wiki which grows from 0 to ~250,000 articles[18] in about half a year is definitely notable.
- Comment I voted Keep, but it should be noted that the majority of those articles were created by an automated script pulling lyrics off the Internet. Article count alone isn't sufficient justification for a vote. -SpuriousQ 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Here we go again everytime something becomes popular certain users have to get all up tight. The Puritan days are over —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs).
Keep Notable large wiki. --Oakshade 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per SColombo. Also see here for other mentions in the media. SpuriousQ 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Supercalifregilisticexplialidocious keep I am a user of this wiki. ~~•S e an•gorter• ^{Get a signature!} 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - In addition to all the above, efforts are being made to obtain licences for the lyrics hosted on the site. Even if this were not the case, it is still a notable site. - Teknomunk 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Oh come on. Wikipedia has articles on so many other wikis, why not this one? It also has the potential to become a companion reference, like Wiktionary and Memory Alpha. We have templates for those, they're so popular. We can link song articles to their lyrics on LyricWiki in the same manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyagerfan5761 (talk • contribs).
Speedy Keep I see no grounds for deletion. Nominator has not given any reason whatsoever for deletion that is grounded in any WP policy. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Solonoski

This skater is not notable according to the consensus criteria for figure skaters discussed here, or the more general category of athletes who have participated at "the highest level in mainly amateur sports" described in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Solonoski has never qualified to skate at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, much less been chosen to represent the U.S. in international competition. I know he is a serious athlete and quite a pleasant skater to watch -- but he simply doesn't have the competitive credentials to justify a claim of notability in the sport. Dr.frog 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Article was {{prod}}'d and {{prod-2}}'d but removed by low-contrib count anon IP with no comment. This is not in and of itself a good or bad thing, but just "noted for the record." — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Seems like an athlete with potential, but yet to achieve notability. Frexes 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete more than enough time was given to show notability for Solonoski. — Pelladon 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Pelladon. --ImmortalGoddezz 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayumi Ando

Delete: not significant even in the drastically shortened state.Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Just as a quick side note the article was originally a long "autobiography" but was shortened to its current state see history Daniel J. Leivick 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete If this individual participated in a Broadway version of RENT, then I could see notability. AS it stands now, the article only suggests the subject has been in a few musicals in general. As it stands, NN. Scienter 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The person is a participant in the New York version of Rent, per Playbill. hateless 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Based on available information, including the above Playbill link, appears to be ensemble/chorus/bit player. Good luck in the future, but for now NN. Fan-1967 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find information published by multiple non-trivial reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability; this policy must be met before considering importance/notability. A biography in Playbill is a trivial source, as it is written by the subject of the biography and then submitted to the editors of Playbill. No Google hits for reviews, etc.; Internet Broadway Database only lists her performance in Rent.—Chidom ^talk 22:00, 6 December 2006

Delete Non-noticable bit player. When she hits the big time, then she can get her own page. 82.40.146.92 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD A7, db-web / group, no proof nor assertion of importance or significance. Deizio talk 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulse Music Board

Non-notable webboard, fails WP:WEB, WP:RS. Elar agirl^Talk|Count 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Also makes no assertion of notability. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liburnian language

The whole information about the so-called Liburnian language seems to me very unreliable if not fake. Such long existence of a relict Indo-European language in Europe would be a scientific sensation; however, this language actually "exists" only in Wikipedia and its clones. Isn't it strange, Dmitri Lytov 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. "Liburnian language" is original research & mistification, as Siberian language--Nikolay Kolpakov 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Question/Comment - I see that the apparent creator of this article is currently banned from editing Wikipedia. Can someone enlighten me on the possible significance of that, either here or on my talk page? Thanks! Keesiewonder 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Liburnian has an entry over at Linguist List, and an ISO 639-3 code. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but even if it isn't a real language, it'd still be worth having an article that begins "Liburnian is a hoax Indo-European language fabricated by..." --Ptcamn 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and an entry in Trask's Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics: "Liburnian An extinct and sparsely recorded language spoken on the coast of Croatia in Roman times, probably related to Illyrian or to Venetic (opinions differ)." Seems pretty real to me. --Ptcamn 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This old language is only mentioned but not attested by any inscriptions, so that people can only guess about its origin. As far as I know, ancient authors wrote nothing about the origin of Liburnian people. --Dmitri Lytov 10:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Re-Write - while Liburnian is a real, attested language, the "neo-Liburnian" language, added by User:195.29.48.224 seems to be patent nonsense. Dewrad 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is patent nonsense, certainly anything post-Roman in it. Delete it as soon as possible, it just brings the wikipedia into disrepute.

If anyone disagrees with me, let's look at the following quotation: "Among 23,700 noted words, ...". OK, let's see those 23,700 words, where are they - in what books, in which libraries, authenticated by which scholars?

Gsandi 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for resources, haven't found anything to share yet, and have asked someone passionate about languages for their input. Keesiewonder 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC) / I've since learned that both the Ethnologue and Omniglot sites do not have any mention of the Liburnian language. Keesiewonder 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The topic is encyclopedic. Problems over content are not solved by deletion. If we decide to delete this, it will be questionable whether anyone is allowed to create an article about the real Liburnian language without some tedious and problematic "resurrection" procedure here. (I would consent to any sort of deletion of this page only if the deletion deletes hoax content edits, but not the topic itself.) Maed 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I'm glad to hear the opinion that the topic is encyclopedic. Can you then refer me to some resources so I can read about it for myself? I have not been very successful yet on my own (I'm usually pretty good at finding resources) and am doing my best to remain open minded. I will try to locate the references noted on the article's page. Regards, Keesiewonder 12:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC) / Amazon.com allows you to search within Wilkes' book mentioned on the article's page. Searching for Liburnian yields 35 hits, none of which appear to have anything to do with a Liburnian language. Please see [19]. With that, I vote delete since I will not be able to read the other 2 resources mentioned unless they are translated to English. Keesiewonder 10:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) / Reconsider from a delete to a weak keep, focusing on input from Ptcamn and DGG. Keesiewonder 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment There does seem to be a book discussing neo-Liburnic (details on Talk:Liburnian language) but one of the authors may be rather "non-mainstream". Tending towards 'delete' unless someone can stub it down to verifiable facts about the ancient language. --HJMG 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless someone has the specialist knowledge to present differing opinions from a NPOV. My second choice would be for someone to create a stubby article mentioning Trask - as quoted by Ptcamn above - and Glanville Price: "Liburnian . . . . If, which is uncertain, their Illyrian-type speech was sufficiently distinct to have constituted a separate language, the evidence of place-names from the area suggests that it was similar to Venetic." --HJMG 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Being bold, I have simply reverted the article back to a version without the controversial "Neo-Liburnian". Hopefully this should satisfy everyone? Dewrad 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Dewrad. It certainly is better, but I'm still concerned that this article may be speculation dressed up as knowledge. The article has too many un-cited, vague assertions like "It appears to have been...", "may well have been", "a number of linguists argue" and "probably very early in the Common era" while giving the impression that such theories are more or less established as facts. The title and overall approach to the topic may be inherently POV since apparently not everyone agrees it was a distinct language. The sources seem rather sparse. The Wilkes book only mentions names and the Untermann article is 16 pages long, but may not be all about Liburnian. --HJMG 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
KeepSpecialized knowledge is not necessary. What is necessary is that a language with an iso code and multiple mentions in major reference work in the subject is notable. (this is an article about the Liburnian language, so it also does not require specialist knowledge to see that any doubts about a neo-Liburnian language is besides the point. If there's an article on it eventually then we can appropriately discuss neo--Liburnian DGG 05:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I agree about the language having an ISO code. Good point. And, for "multiple mentions in major reference works," you must then consider two works, Trask and Price, adequate, even if all there is in each work is 1-2 sentences. I can agree with that ... Keesiewonder 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call Me Crazy California Style

Bedroom mixtape created by Brandon DiCamillo in 1996. Not close to WP:MUSIC nor encyclopedic as part of the CKY universe. Deizio talk 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete ...why would anyone even make an article on this? --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing to imply it has any significance. Anyone can make a self-released tape. Heimstern Läufer 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, involvement of Bam Margera just shows this to be Bamcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the creator is not noted for his music and so notability is not transferred to this, and without sources, it can't be verified. Trebor 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus seems to be that the article needs improvement, not deletion. W.marsh 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece: Unlimited Adventure

Crystal ball gazing of the first degree. Lets recreate when the game has been released and there is something to write an article about Spartaz 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it almost looks researched. If all it had was the name, I'd be more adamant. Niki Whimbrel 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Eiwob 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it is a game from a well known series. It was also previously previewed by IGN [[20]]. I don't think crystalbalism applies here. Also there is no rule against creating enteries for unrleased games. --67.68.155.234 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Its totally unsourced and full of speculations and tags for adding stuff when information is available. Also see crystal ball gazing that says

Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.

There is no sourced content here - therefore its simply a placeholder and redundant. --Spartaz 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. It's not a good article at all, but I suspect most of the claims made in it can actually be sourced from previews etc., so it probably doesn't actually violate any inclusion policies.
The Wikipedia approach to substandard articles is to improve them, not to delete them. Therefore, before this is considered for deletion, it should be cleaned up by removing non-encyclopedic content and claims that genuinely cannot be verified from the multiple sources provded. Only then will it be clear whether there is actually any content here or not. If there turns out not to be any, then deletion can be considered, but as I said, I suspect it will turn out that most of the claims are verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, showcased at E3 2006 and was confirmed in Sept. to be released accodring to IGN. Likely notable when released. -- Steve Hart 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MilanIN

Italian business networking website. Orphan, no references, no claim to notability; the website suggests less than 700 members. All google hits appear to be promotional or of the 'I am a member of MilanIN' type, with no sign of independent reports, hence the article fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Salad Days 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Without (non-primary) sources, this article can't be verified. Delete unless reliably sourced. Trebor 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin surveillance

del nonverifiable. The author probably reading too much (or too few) spy novels. `'mikkanarxi 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete; I can't find any sources for this. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Hello32020 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, while it may have been a term used at one time it doesn't seem particularly notable. The decoy technique is interesting, but probably not worth an entire article anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Deizio talk 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:OR. AubreyEllenShomo 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't verify it either. JChap2007 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete What use is there spying on dolphins anyway? Caknuck 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ollie Jones (actor)

Not sufficently notable PatGallacher 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to re-create a previously deleted article Ollie Jones. PatGallacher 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The defender's comment on the Talk page that "...he will be famous one day..." demonstrates explicit knowledge of the subjects' current lack of notability. Tagged as such. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but please add some sources to the article. W.marsh 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puk Kai

del This is English language wikipedia, not a guide in chinese profanities. `'mikkanarxi 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion page of the said article for prior deletion discussion. No consensus was reached.--Cmlau 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
delete not-English expresion that has no prominence in English language. If it were borrowed into english use, such as gringo or schmuck, then it would be OK do talk about it. Mukadderat 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Article has an entry on Cantonese WP. If you read the content of the existing English article, it shows that the term is a significant part of Hong Kong culture. Furthermore, there are a number of articles on English WP about subjects named by Cantonese terms. See Category:Cantonese terms. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have no knowledge or interest in the subject. I'm neither going to vote for keeping it, or going around nominating for deletion articles in the subject. Wikipedia would be a more informative and productive project if all editors did likewise. Dekkappai 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Article is a big part of Hong Kong Culture. Not only is it common to hear, but it is normally one of the first words of Cantonese someone learns it is so important. This article is not teaching Cantonese, it is discussing the culture around it. Culture is a valuable topic on wikipedia, and therefore it should be kept. See Category:Cantonese terms.HKChigger

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuffens

Organization is a local club in Trollhättan on the high school level for teens interested in science Thuresson 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, nn teenage science club. Deizio talk 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry, but I gotta say delete, it's not notable, nor is it worth anything to anyone who does not live in that area. CchristianTehWazzit

commentI'd reccomend that the person who wrote it copy it into notepad if they want to keep it, as it is bound to be deleted.

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

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

The result was delete both as complete flights of fantasy. Sandstein 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial Rugby Union World Championships

I'm not an expert on WP:OR, but I think these two related pages violate it. The concept of an Unofficial Rubgy Union World Championships is one that does not exist (or at least, is not shown to exist) outside these pages. any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. Well this certainly hasn't happened here. I like the concept and I like the Unofficial Football World Championships on which it is based, but I think it consists entirely of original research. --Robdurbar 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Taking a number of perfectly genuine historical games of Rugby Union Football and asigning them to a purely imaginary Championship, which did not exist whem the games were played (or now, for that matter) is a nonsense, as is the article, except insofar as the reports of game results are factual. I thought that I had put a {{speedy}} tag on this some time back, but it does not show in the edit history and I could be wrong.--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as WP:OR. -- Whpq 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torstein Eckhoff

Strong Delete - completely non-notable stub.

Failte 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

weak keep- maybe he is notable. It depends on what he published. Unfortunately I cannot translate Norvegian. An article exists also on no.wp , created on July 2005. Cate 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment, the AfD was done incorrectly. Now I copy from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Affinity and redone the step correctly. Cate 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Update - The listing is in some semblance of order now. →Bobby← 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. An orphan article, no comprehensible notability asserted. The Norwegian article is also sparse and hardly linked, so it would seem we're not overlooking Norwegian standards of notability. -- Shunpiker 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The state of an article is not a valid way to determine notability. The Norwegian article may just need cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Agreed that the poor condition of an article does not, in and of itself, confer non-notability on its subject. But the quality of relevant articles are useful as circumstantial evidence of notability in the absence of other indicators. And unfortunately, there is such an absence. A well-written and well-linked article on the Norwegian site might suggest systemic bias is behind the poor quality and unclear arguments for notability of the English article. But the article on the Norwegian site is also in a problematic state, so the fact of its existence is little argument for keeping the English article. So we're left with an orphaned stub with no coherent claim to notability: Eckhoff was a professor, and he published "Rettskildelære". Which may or may not be a notable publication, but at this point we have to guess. If someone can develop the stub to the point where the claim to notability is clear, I'm happy to change my vote. Barring that, I don't see how delete (with no prejedudice against recreation) is controversial. Even stubs have to assert notability, and the bar should be higher for orphan stubs. -- Shunpiker 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The Books search cited by Dhartung persuades me that this is indeed a notable figure in Norwegian law. It would be great if some of this research could make it into the article! -- Shunpiker 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep his work seems to be important in his field, and for some reason he was the only professor in Norway that had permition to smoke during his lectures... Needs to be updated and expanded by some one with knowledge of Norwegian and law. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Relister's comment: My opinion is that this is a WP:CSD#A7 speedy, but hey, it's good that we're talking about it, right? Sigh. Sandstein 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Norwegian Institute of Human Rights calls the book a "standard work" that has been revised since his death. [21], so there should be more sources, perhaps from the 140 Google Books results on his name. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect this as appropriate. W.marsh 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kemal Shahin

The subject is not notable outside of Big Brother, and anything that would make him notable is not sourced. _JD^talk 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete (and redirect to relevant series of Big Brother). Not notable. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per AnemoneProjectors. Fancruft. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete a poorly disguised vanity page. Akihabara 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete If anyone actually wants to do the transwiki (and thinks Wiktionary wants this) let me know and I will make the material available to you. W.marsh 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of profanities

del yet another clone of deleted list of sexual slurs and other similar lists, an uncontrollable playground of anons. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. `'mikkanarxi 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can be quite amusing, but delete as per nom. Pathlessdesert 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a list with too unreasonable of a scope.-- danntm ^T _C 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to a wiktionary appendix. They have cat for vulgarities already, but I couldn't find an appendix. --Karnesky 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -Gilliam 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per Karnesky. --Blackhawk charlie2003 13:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Radisson Hotels

Also nominating the following pages:

List of Hyatt Hotels
List of Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts
List of Four Seasons hotels

Wikipedia is not a directory or mere collections of external links. I see no encyclopedic value in listing every franchise of a business. Similar pages have been deleted recently with the same rationale. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Marriott hotels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sheraton hotels. Khatru2 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete All - these lists really are just a directory. -- Whpq 22:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all even though I edited the Radisson list myself. I thought about AfD'ing it too, but was, erm, distracted before I could do it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All per WP:NOT... a directory. WJBscribe 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Scottish Gaelic profanity

del wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither it is a guide to slang usage in foreign languages. `'mikkanarxi 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Gaelic profanity without consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, foreign language dictionary excerpts. Pathlessdesert 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I regretted to some extent my decision on this last time after more thought, and the reasons I had last time have been shown since to be worthless. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. -- Steve Hart 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonitis

Non-notable and unsourced disease in Futurama. Fails WP:NN and WP:FICTION —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It can't be expanded beyond a simple summary of the plot it was involved in, so fails WP:FICTION. Trebor 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Trebor. I merged the two useful sentences into the episode article at Future_Stock. AubreyEllenShomo 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Trebor.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete plot elements that appeared in only a single episode do not pass muster.-- danntm ^T _C 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Barely even fancruft. —ShadowHalo 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APS Polytechnic

The page seems to be a direct cut-and-paste from a letter. It is quite obscure and does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Stevemarks 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. It's hard to tell what it's about, but I can't find any understandable information online. Trebor 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in light of TruthbringerToronto's changes (i.e. I now know what the subject is about). Trebor 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AubreyEllenShomo 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't figure out exactly what this article is about, but since it's in Category:Colleges and universities, I assume it's a college/university. Fails WP:SCHOOL. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. University-level institutions are notable, even if they don't have their own web site. I found some sites which verify that this institution exists. I got rid of a lot of text and added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etudism

returns no English google hits. Prod was removed. Possible hoax, unless sources are established. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Pathlessdesert 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax. WP:OR at best. -- Shunpiker 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NEO (at least in English). Block user WikTikTav too, for pulling AfD tags instead of adding references. Tubezone 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, author requested deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grading in Democracy Courses

This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic article, but looks like original research. Among other things, it asks readers to sign inline if they agree with the text's proposal. Thue | talk 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete made up in school. ~ trialsanderrors 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so it is a work in progress. I have removed the signatures section and will address the other concerns directly. This is applied to a specific topic and not just made up in school one day, but a specific resource. Please continue with you contributions so that we can make this a reality. CompletelyNaked | talk

It still reads like a proposal, and not an article describing a subject. Thue | talk 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a petition site. This is not an encyclopedia article, and nothing in it could be converted into one without being totally rewritten. Not that it matters, but the proposal itself (getting an A for stuff like intending to make people's lives better and other vague stuff) is pretty silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to speedy since this seems to be create to put pressure on a professor, but I can't really come up with a good criterion other than WP:SNOW. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This was created by a fellow member of my class. It's not intended to put pressure on the professor - the professor asked us to come up with our own grading scheme. However, I think it was mistakenly placed on Wikipedia, which is not a free host. It has already been moved to another wiki host. Delete. --Alynna 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete (obviously). Sure, this doesn't meet any speedy criteria, per se, but I'm with trials on this one- there isn't a snowball's chance in hell this will be kept, so why not just speedy it? -- Kicking222 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment In hindsight from a discussion with a frequent editor, I realize that Wikipedia is not the correct place for this. All the content has been moved to a more appropriate site. My apologies. Please delete --CompletelyNaked 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In light of the author's comment, G7 speedy delete.-- danntm ^T _C 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth Hacks

The article was prodded for verifiability and deleted already but the deletion is contested at WP:DRV, so I'm sending this here to establish community consensus. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some information about the site:

References to the site from major news sources [22]
Statistics about the number of files on the site [23] and the number of members [24] (granted, those are on-site links, but I'm not sure how you could find accurate third-party references for those items)
A simple whois will verify the owner of the site and the date the URL was purchased [25]

I'm not sure what other information is needed.

Mickmel 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the article is nothing but raw statistics, which read a lot like "Hey, look how good we are!". I am unsurprised to see information in support of the site being posted by the same person that used the word we in the review. Apparently the site is owned and run by someone called "Mickey Mellen" (hmm...). In all fairness, User:MickMel has only edited the article once - to update the numbers. No recommendation yet. Chris cheese whine 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you pointed out, yes, it's my site. I'll refrain from taking a side on this debate other than to contribute general information that might help with a decision. Mickmel 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That said, permission to add GEWar to the debate? Chris cheese whine 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GEWar is a separate thing isn't it? Is it affiliated with Google Earth Hacks directly or just through the fact that it uses Google? Wickethewok 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was created by Google Earth Hacks and run on the site for a while before moving to it's own server. Mickmel 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say that the article lists its creator as "Mickey" and extlinks to GEH. Again, it appears that User:Mickmel has not become involved with the article (which is a good thing). Chris cheese whine 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn/crufty. Anomo 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The relevant guideline for "notability" as it pertains to internet content is here: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Dystopos 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. --Simonkoldyk 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I have heard the phrase "Google Earth hacks" several times over the past few weeks. I thought it was just referring to different hacks people knew of. Without this article, how would I have known it was actually a website, and then how would I have known anything about that website?Tragic romance 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep We've heard of it, yes, because Google has listed it as one of the Gadgets for its personalized home page, although saying its not their official product, and several million people have certainly seen the name, and a good many of them installed it. It's not a one-time thing, the hacks are being added to, and what more can anyone want for notability? Non-encyclopedic tone, and needs to be upgraded, but notable it certainly is.DGG 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable wp:WEB. Has been chosen as Site of the Day by About.com [26]. Google seems to have banned the site with a meager 4 hits, but there are 150K hits (gross) at Yahoo. -- Steve Hart 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per DGC FirefoxMan 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay

Procedural. Prodded, deleted, recreated with copyvio-looking text, nominated for CSD A7, which I declined. Concern was notability by association. I abstain. - crz crztalk 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Basically an Empress dowager, which seems to pass inclusion guidelines. However, revert back to this stub to get rid of copy vio info. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Being the wife a famous person does name make someone notable; a Google search demonstrates that perfectly. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, at least until some claim of notability. Wives of famous people aren't inherently notable, less so when they keep around a dozen or so. JRP 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you think this page is bad look at Gulnar Agacheh (and, less awful but still not especially informative, Ayisheh Sultan Begum). DrKiernan 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Existence of a less-useful article isn't grounds to keep this one. I've WP:PRODded both of those now, thanks. JRP 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I absolutely agree, Gulnar Agacheh is a candidate for speedy delete. If there's ever a debate on that one, count me in on your side. DrKiernan 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
weak keep per young, from the rv text she seems to have played some role in the succesion, main problem seems to be ammount of extant info about her (at least if that text is reliable). maybe a redirect to her husband & mention there, or the relevant history article, is more appropriate? ⇒ bsnowball 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Babur, until some sign of notability provided. utcursch | talk 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayisheh Sultan Begum - crz crztalk 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per youngamerican. Historic figures are verifiable and this one as an Empress dowager warrents inclusion. --Oakshade 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Do you delete all articles so quickly? it was gone within hours of posting. I know it wasnt very wiki written but that was the best I could do at the time and I assumed I would have a grace period of at least 24 hours to come and edit it. — Khana bibi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

She did move Babur's remain to kabul to baghe babur, could we at least mention that, I didnt save a copy of what aecis deleted so if any one has a copy please forward it to me. thanks(Khana bibi 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Delete See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayisheh Sultan Begum. DrKiernan 08:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmshurst Crescent

Non-notable - article is about a small residential street in a London suburb of no distinction or encyclopedic value. I assume the article was created by a resident who wanted their road listed on Wikipedia Saikokira 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete 151 unique Ghits, vast majority were property or directory listings. Nothing remotely remarkable about this road from what I found. Ohconfucius 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DrKiernan 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Steve Hart 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems called for. I have added the tags and concerned editors can do the merge. W.marsh 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missile Frigate

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge to the article on TradeWars 2002; also merge the pages on the other ships used in this game. JChap2007 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.
Merge into TW2002, and then rebuild as a dab page for Aegis like frigates. (FFG/FGG/FG) 132.205.93.32 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete or merge~~, Tulkolahten 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, I reviewed parent page TradeWars 2002 and there are more pages about ships used in that game, it should be better to keep all of them as they are. Merging will lead to very long article. Tulkolahten 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename this and other TradeWars 2002 ship articles to, perhaps, Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002)? Hircus 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Tulkolahten Sharkface217 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename this and others to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002), redirect Missile Frigate to Missile frigate, dab Missile frigate to refer to the Aegis class wessels and the TW2002 ship wow that was long Missle frigates are a major part of any navy and it is also a common name of stuff from games, so "Missile Frigate" is a very general term. In this case, we should dab it. Copysan 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge Category:TradeWars_2002_ship_types into a single article. The main TW2002 article is too big to put them there but there's not enough to say about any one ship (most TW2002 ships are pretty generic) that they don't need individual articles. Redirect the title per Copysan above. BCoates 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think merging will destroy uniformity of the whole article. I would agree with moving to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002) per Copysan. Tulkolahten 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

corrected to link to category, not categorize this AfD. BCoates 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Rename since this game article shows up in Google when the searcher might want info on real world missile frigates. Edison 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Dab and Merge to a list of tradewars ships. No need for a separate article for each ship. -- Whpq 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Missile Frigate should obviously be a redirect to Frigate. Whether it should be merged is another matter. Merge per BCoates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Delete There's no need for a separate article. Xiner 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Kalafatidis

Non-notable failed candidate for Quebec provincial assembly (1% of the vote in 2003). Googlesearch for his television and radio shows bring up only his personal website and Myspace page, which shows that the television show was on cable access; radio show was only 7 episodes on an AM station about to go defunct. Galteglise 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

del nonnotable politician. `'mikkanarxi 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. What is a "looby group" anyway? Caknuck 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blue Shoes

[edit] JAR hell

[edit] Brockley CC

[edit] Alexander Litvinenko assassination

[edit] WikiBrowse

[edit] Wikiturfing

[edit] Ricky Graham

[edit] Silent Kimbly

[edit] Wire sculpture

[edit] Welding helmet

[edit] List of cities in the rust belt

[edit] Plasmagnetic Levitation

[edit] Bullycide

[edit] Hovertech

[edit] Off-line

[edit] List of redheads

[edit] Online

[edit] International Weather Almanac 2001

[edit] Pokemon Snap DS

[edit] CatLinc

[edit] Sniper Joe

[edit] Darren Speegle

[edit] Finland honey

[edit] Networlding

[edit] Wing Commander Vinyáyá

[edit] MAVIA

[edit] KEXL FM Tower

[edit] GBC LP DBA Tower

[edit] Flagstaffian Cuddletouch

[edit] Overjoyed Productions

[edit] KTMO Tower

[edit] Mercurial Insights

[edit] 2014 Twenty20 World Championship, 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship

[edit] Fairmont Preparatory Academy

[edit] Lois Herr

[edit] List of idioms in the English language

[edit] Dean Wilkinson

[edit] Melissa Brown (2nd nomination)

[edit] Duane Burghard

[edit] Beaver Control

[edit] Unobtainium

[edit] Nisio Isin

[edit] Spiderbaby (Yeah-Yeah-Yeah)

[edit] I Am Legend (song)

[edit] Soul-Crusher (song)

[edit] Fnugg

[edit] Nazi Breeding Camps

[edit] Battlecity

[edit] Puntambekar

[edit] Erik A. Williams

[edit] Perth Tram Company

[edit] Episode 307

[edit] One (Rihanna album)

[edit] Christopher Holden

[edit] Web 2.1

[edit] Open Ebooks Directory

[edit] 汉宣帝

[edit] Long Horse

[edit] Pavel Novotný

[edit] Amanda Swafford

[edit] Antonio's Pizza

[edit] Beekeeping helmet

[edit] ABBYY PDF Transformer

[edit] Aisha (Gundam SEED)

[edit] Amanda & Rachel Pace

[edit] Axway

[edit] Biljana Plavšić

[edit] Captain Todaka

[edit] Dominique Ducharne (AfD subpage)

[edit] Duncan Doughnuts (Radio)

[edit] Harry Jackson (B&B)

[edit] Kaia and Kendall Huebner

[edit] Kevin Riordan and the Band

[edit] MacKenzie Mauzy

[edit] Merja Taponen

[edit] Music For Sport (AfD subpage)

[edit] Orange juice cd trick