Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 31

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. User:Angr 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Corporation (Beer Pong)

Non-notable group. East Coast Beirut Association get 0 Google hits; The Corporation doesn't appear to get any either. May be a hoax. --Natalie 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Claims to have been mentioned in a paper, however. Consider Merge into List of Beer Pong teams if not delete. LinaMishima 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Fave112 has a poor edit history, with the only other edit on another being removed later LinaMishima 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7; group of people with no assertion of notability. User:Angr 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Angr and per nom. --Bigtop 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I actually tagged it for speedy deletion earlier, but the author removed the tag, twice. SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. The sooner the better. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom.AFireUponDeep 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the glass half empty or half full?

Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam^(talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom-- Mertens21  ^Talk  05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep bad faith nomination, could have been solved by tagging it POV and in need of sources. Since this is very well-known, sources should be easy to find. (Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time). -- Koffieyahoo 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This doesn't seem very encyclopedic, particularly with a title like that. The concept might warrant mention in a broader article somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate one. Arkyan 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - this isn't a host for people's essays. Byrgenwulf 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Opinions can be edited out over time. Deet 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for sources etc... By the history appears to have survived a VfD in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the article history it appears somebody tried to VFD it, but was unsuccessful in it — providing it wasn't just vandalism at the time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. This is someone's personal essay. No sources are cited. Violates WP:V and WP:OR. If well-known sources are easy-to-find, please cite some. Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a well-known and well-used idiom and theory. Needs sources and some WP:V cleanup; but well-written and informative. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Speedy keep. I would like to remind Wikipedians that an article is only justified for deletion if the topic isn't a worthwhile subject for an article under Wikipedia rules. Otherwise, it simply needs cleanup, and while this article does need cleanup, it is certainly notable and sources should be very easy to find. Dark Shikari 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The topic is an encyclopedic idea, but I don't often hear the idiom expressed in this manner. Is a user really going to search for a question, or can we come up with a better name (or place) for the article? (My weak keep doesn't imply I think the content should be deleted, it's just that I haven't ruled out the possibility of a move or merge.) Jacqui^★ 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Agreed here. The article name isn't very useful, but I can't think of a better one. Anyone have any ideas? Dark Shikari 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't there be articles on optimism/pessimism: that's really what the problem comes down to; a mention of the expression could be made there (if it isn't already). And since it is a philosophical problem, the little schpiel about "imagining you are in charge of ... " (which reads like a bad teambuilding corporate waste of time) must go, no matter what. Does anyone have any serious objections to me going and excising it? Byrgenwulf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Jacqui — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:27, 31 July '06}
• Comment — The glass is clearly twice as big as it needs to be, and so is inefficient. It was undoubtedly designed to government specifications. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well known expression. LOL @ previous comment – Alensha  ^talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment Keep: Wikipedia has many articles on well-known phrases and terms of speech, see Fork in the road, Standing on the shoulders of giants, Survival of the fittest, Pay through the nose, etc for other examples. This is no less worthy for inclusion then any of these others. It should be kept, and worked on to improve. Comment: I can see how the title would be difficult to find, but I can't think of a better one. At any rate, the problem is easily solved with redirects from other possible search terms. I have added several such redirects.
• Keep - bad-faith nomination. Should have tagged it POV, per Koffieyahoo. --Bigtop 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as well known expression and per Jacqui. GrapePie 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ample amount of information on a well-known (and therefore at least partially notable) phrase. --Gray Porpoise 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dark Shakari and Grey Porpoise. Joe 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, inappropriate nomination. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge article itself seems fine to me, however it, and similar articles with little more possible content than the existing stubs, could form a List of philosphical expressions (or some other suitable merge list page). LinaMishima 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am very disappointed that people keep throwing around "bad-faith nomination". I was serious when I listed this at AfD, and am still convinced it does not belong, not solely for content being POV, but because this is simply not encyclopedic. If you disagree with that assessment, then say so...don't tell me I'm listing it in bad-faith. For what reason would I have to do this? This is my first AfD listing, and I tried to follow all of the steps. To Koffieyahoo, in edit mode it says "<!-- Add new entries below this line -->", not "Add entries at the bottom of the list. "(Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time)" is a little uncivil. Just one request to the rest of the people who comment here. Please don't throw degrading remarks about me around, just because I nominated an article that you think should stay, or because I'm relatively new (and for the record, I've been around for over a year with a different username before this). Newnam^(talk) 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for bad faith probably stems from the happy existance of many similar articles. Before commenting, I went looking, and such pages as Have one's cake and eat it too do indeed exist. You are, of course, right to remind people to be civil towards you. LinaMishima 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Important and popular expression. Nominating this is like nominating Meaning of life. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it just needs sources (maybe starting with Filling the Glass: The Skeptic's Guide to Positive Thinking in Business :). I don't think the nom was in bad faith. Ziggurat 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep, it has to do with philosophy after all. Popcorn2008 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
• Keep as per above. -(chubbstar)^{— talk | contrib | 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-Right politics and the War on Terrorism

Unreferenced. Overly broad and superficial. Lacks WP:V, and is WP:OR. Intangible 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads like an essay. -- Koffieyahoo 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete good essay. maybe some important points can be salvaged and merged into their respective articles --Ageo020 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being an essay - for future reference, please make AfD nominations at the bottom of the relevant page. BigHaz 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You sure about that? The directions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion clearly say that the tag belongs at the top of the page. The nomination belongs at the bottom of the listing, though - is that what you meant? Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah. That's what I meant. Tag at the top, nomination (here) at the bottom. BigHaz 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per structure. Michael 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There should at least be some newspaper, magazine, or even tv coverage of this. Looks more like an argument with OR written all over it. WP:POV. SynergeticMaggot 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; essay, seems unlikely to become actual article. --Aquillion 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borouge

Non-notable company. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — This partnership may well meet WP:CORP — see this 2003 business intelligence report. However, as written, the article is purely an advertisement, without encyclopedic value. — ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - it does appear that this may indeed be a rather large company, so it may meet WP:CORP. The reason the article reads like advertising is because it is one huge copyright violation with most of it appearing to be lifted straight from their press releases. The article needs significant cleanup if kept. -- Whpq 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is not a place for corporate press releases. May well be a notable company but I cannot face cleaning this one up to save it. They can come back if an encyclopaedic page is produced. BlueValour 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per BlueValour's rational.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Copyvio from [1] which says "Registered users of PressReleaseFinder are free to use the press releases in their publications. All other uses of the information provided by PressReleaseFinder is prohibited without written consent." Dlyons493 Talk 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. SynergeticMaggot 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but definatley notable enough to have a properly written article about. Newnam^(talk) 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vice Faction

Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. --Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per WP:V (12 items in google, 4 in yahoo, 0 in ask jeeves), not one of those was a good source. Alos the article fails to state the importance of the subject. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - per JLJeremiah. To be honest dispite the lack of google hits, this is a well written article. One of wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of obscure topics. I see no advert's or copyright violations in this article. (note google is only able to spider something like 20% of the web, so I would suggest someone trying another search engine)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - no sources alone is not reason to delete an article. (if it is, delete half the wiki please). I would suggest a {{unreferenced}} tag be placed on the article —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Being unverifiable because there are no sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting an article. If the article cites no sources and you cannot find any sources when you do your best to find some, then the article is unverifiable. Whether an article is well-written or not simply doesn't enter into it. It's up to the editor supplying the content (or someone else) to cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• This article was half finished when listed for deletion, it has been updated since. More information provided. A slip of the mouse caused half of the article to be posted. --JLJeremiah 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, weak to no Google presence, I see no WP:RS which state why this Flash animation is more notable than the (insert your own large number here) that get deleted on a daily basis. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to Kinu's verdict; This animation is more notable then the bulk of animation articles daily on wikipedia because it is on lifepoint1.com, which gets tens of thousands of uniques per day, Vice faction is a partner animation which shares space with the legendary Xin flash animation series, its popularity is compareable to it. You cannot tell me this is just a normal shitty flash webcomic, this animation has a notable fan basis. Unlike the normal flash articles you see on here, this flash series plot has been weaved; thought out if you will. This is a major project which spans a major fan appeal, per request we created an article on wikipedia. This article has potential to be added to in the future as more information comes forth, wikipedia is a database for notable information correct? Well this is information, my kind sir. --JLJeremiah 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notable webcomics tend to get talked about. People on other sites talk about them, and post links to them. There's no sign of that for this one. Fan-1967 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a venue for primary source material, such as a new description of a work of fiction that is constructed from direct research. That is forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you wish to publish a description of a webcomic from direct research, your own web site is the place. Conversely, if you are not using direct research, but are synthesising knowledge from existing sources, then you must cite sources to demonstrate that. That is the way, and the only way, to persuade editors to change their minds. Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources and a poor Google and Alexa showing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No realible sources alone is no reason to delete this article. --JLJeremiah 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary. Verification from Reliable Sources is absolutely required to keep an article. That is an absolute core standard in Wikipedia. Fan-1967 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless a highly RS can be found which reviews this comic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Uncle G's reasoning.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no evidence that this meets WEB, and it seems to be simply another Flash webcomic. Plus those pictures seem rather dubious. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above discussion. SynergeticMaggot 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the entire article seems to be written by JL Jeremiah. This also seems to be the person who penned the web animation itself. I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that articles about one's self or one's own work should not be created by that person, but by an outside source. Aside from that, it definately appears non-notable, and per the author's affiliation, self-advertisement. Newnam^(talk) 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to establish notability. There are thousands of Flash web comics out there, and this one doesn't appear any different from the crowd. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and Zetawoof. GassyGuy 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Especially since User:JLJeremiah both created the page and the subject material. JLJeremiah should consider moving the page to their own sanbox and keeping such well-writen content around for when their work becomes more notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Wireless

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link other than the website in the article is a blog. Blogs are usually not even allowed as links for articles (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - needs some improvement, but Seattle Wireless is surely the biggest mover in commumity supported public WiFi access. Ace of Risk 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a very large and very visible community of hunderds of Seattlites, who assembled this this non-profit to increase access in their community. As valid as Sierra Club or any other non-profit. pr. BillDrisco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.113.55 (talk • contribs). 3:11, 27 July 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• This was a tough delete for me. What tipped it over the edge was that there was no verifiable sources provided in the article nor even on their web-page (that I could find).--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup and improve this article. --Bigtop 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}

• Delete unsourced POV --Samael775 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I added these article links to External links, some which mention the company in passing and some which cover it significantly. It appears to be notable. I'd say cleanup and improve, rather than delete. TransUtopian 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cave, Damien, "Unchaining the Net", Salon.com, 2000-12-01

Kahney, Leander, "Home-grown Wireless Networks", TheFeature, 2001-05-07

Fleishman, Glenn, "The revolution may be wireless", Seattle Weekly, 2001-07-18

O'Shea, Dan, "Peace, Love & Wi-Fi", Telephony Online, 2002-05-18

Kharif, Olga, "Footing the Bill for Free Wi-Fi", BusinessWeek, 2002-09-17

Helm, Kristi, "Seattle's packed with Wi-Fi spots", The Seattle Times, 2005-02-18

• Delete - just someone's point of view. I thought that was not allow as OR. GrapePie 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: only if the content is inherently an OR essay. There are significant numbers of newspaper articles, so I'd vote Keep and cleanup. --ColourBurst 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A good handfull of regular editors, and some rather impressive cited references. It's just a pity that the official website makes a very poor impression. LinaMishima 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. TransUtopian's links are a good start. --Anirvan 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlliedBarton

Delete non notable companyand all the information comes from the company web site. Looks very much like a vanity puff piece Spartaz 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced article about NN company fails WP:V, also smells like WP:VSCA. --Wine Guy Talk 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Yunipo 13:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Please note, the debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. (from How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette at WP:AFD). --Wine Guy Talk 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - large company that has achieved some notability in its employee training (Just off to add the link to the article!). BlueValour 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - independent sourcing added. BlueValour 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I think this article has overcome its WP:V failings with the addtion of the sources and the link to the training award. This is high praise from a self-proclaimed deletionist.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep just for its workforce size. However, I would point out that claiming encyclopedic notability for coming 98th in an obscure ranking by an obscure magazine is ridiculous. Bwithh 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 98th out of 45,000 on a broadly quoted ranking seems pretty notable to me. Still YMMV! BlueValour 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's still uncited. I accept that independent sources may have been used but there's no evidence of that in the article. Re notability, I doubt if we'd keep an article on the 98th place finisher in a Marathon. Dlyons493 Talk 02:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Trawling through Google and Google News turns up a few interesting web hits. This could be improved beyond a "puff piece" easily. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've changed my vote because the addition of some citations has corrected my main concern about WP:V. I also note some other things which could be added to the article, such as thier apparently strong anti-union stance. There seems to have been a fair amount of media coverage of this issue due to protests a few months back. --Wine Guy Talk 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. After review of this article, and the referenced possible place it's copied from, I find concurrence with what I adjudge consensus to be here. Those in favour of a merge can ask me to userify the contents to one of their userspace pages so they can carry out the merge, but as others point out there may not be much to merge in. --++Lar: t/c 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IKS Fek'lhr

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect - the reasoning is the same as per below from the Negh'Var AfD as quoted: --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a list of StarTrek ships this can be merged to? RJFJR 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What about here? Klingon starships Philip Stevens 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Royalguard11 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negh'Var type. -- Koffieyahoo 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as Trekcruft. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Merge and Redirect per Rhwawn. If the page is indeed a copyvio per Koffieyahoo/Royalguard11, speedy delete. Dark Shikari 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect/Delete better to have it briefly mentioned on Klingon starships. This will never really go beyond a stub. LinaMishima 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per Lina Attic Owl 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per Gay Cdn. --Gray Porpoise 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Mijares

Hardly notable if the group he used to belong to doesn't have an article and his album hasn't been published yet Spartaz 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; fails WP:BIO. JeffMurph 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, helps fight systemic bias against well-known Fillipino musicians [2]. Kappa 09:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence has been provided to show that this artists meets BIO. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as this fails either or both of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gay. This guy is a few albums and press pieces short of meeting MUSIC. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per user Gay Cdn. Can you believe its still WP:NN even after a relist? SynergeticMaggot 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom.AFireUponDeep 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negh'Var type

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't there a list of StarTrek ships this can be merged to? RJFJR 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What about here? Klingon starships Philip Stevens 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, Merge (if needed) and redirect there. (Thanks for finding it.) RJFJR 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete "Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement." That was quoted from the speedy of Sword of Kahless. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Royalguard11. -- Koffieyahoo 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munro Fox

Tagged nn-band but notability is asserted (says they recorded two albums). Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert any real notability in the article and does not appear to meet creteria in WP:MUSIC Spartaz 08:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - recording two albums isn't an assertion of notability if label information is not provided. Punkmorten 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the article fails to provide any verified sources of the nobility claimed (two albums). The band's web site is flashy, but does not provide any info on these two albums or make note of any label they recorded with.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to OOS. DS 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamers thumb

A rose (or in fact RSI) by any other name... This is just a slang term for Repetitive Strain Injury, and is therefore a neologism. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to occupational overuse syndrome with housemaid's knee (prepatellar bursitis) and tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis) as precedent for other things that are "a joint pain by any other name". Tonywalton  | Talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and rename to "Gamer's thumb". Tonywalton  | Talk 11:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect as described above. Deb 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect as per above, its definatly RSI. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Tonywalton... and create a cheap redirect at Gamer's thumb too!--Isotope23 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Natalie 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Worth noting that some South African girl (if I remember correctly) did a paper on this, though. But as an article, it ca't go much beyond a stub linking to RSI. LinaMishima 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete though, I think recreation should be allowed if it can be sourced and proved (through WP:V) that it is notable. However, consensus and the arguments of this article leans towards deletion. Yanksox 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Floating Men

Tagged and contested. Band still have "real jobs" - i.e. are not full-time musicians. Unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC and no evidence in the article of meeting it. Author acknolwedges difficulty of finding information. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under A7 if there is no assertion of notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. May have a mild assertion of notability in the fact that they've been touring since 1990 and have released several albums, hence A7 wouldn't apply, but not notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC as is. Neil916 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Seem to have toured intensively across Midwest and Southeast US. Take a look at their allmusic bio [3]. --Joelmills 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - while they have done some touring per their allmusic bio, I don't think it meets the criteria in WP:MUSIC of "national concert tour...reported in notable and verifiable sources".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Scorpiondollprincess 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...insufficient musical notability to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:MUSIC alphaChimp ^laudare 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gay Cdn's application of WP:MUSIC. Joe 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : Give time to find sources Not everyone is good at finding good sources, and often articles with regular editors and even some people who read the talk end up AFD'd without anyone poking them with a "find sources". If this group have been touring and playing for that long, there should be at least a few local paper mentions of them. LinaMishima 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. They have a significant Google presence and have bios on respectable music sites. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stud (band)

Never a very commercially successful band... just about sums it up!!! DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'll accept that the members were in a notable enough band at another time (and the fact that they all apparently played bass for this more notable band is unusual), but this particular group isn't notable. BigHaz 10:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone in Germany, who has this group's records and knows a good amount of English, would beg to differ! Captain Caveman 9:24 PM EDT 7/24/06

• Keep Per WP:MUSIC - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.. This band contains three members, so a redirect to any one of them would not be appropriate. Also, released two albums on BASF records [4]. Believe it or not, BASF actually had a division that was a record label. It also released albums by Jigsaw and Amon Düül. --Joelmills 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Joel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Joel. I'm not particularly keen on WP:MUSIC's pronouncement as to the necessary notability of any group containing a musician notable in view of his membership in another notable group (believing that notability need not to be understood to entail in every such situation), but I do think there exists a consensus for such entailment. Even absent such provision, though, the band, in view of Joel's adductions, might well be notable in view of its own catalogue. Joe 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - That reason listed above could apply to all sorts of bands, so why have criteria to begin with. GrapePie 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Appears like this stub will never go beyond what should be a small entry in Family_(band). Better to merge in this case. LinaMishima 20:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Joel. The band was on a major record label... Or a record label owned by a major chemical company. Either way. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris! Chris! Chris!

tagged as nn-band but notability is asserted - in an unusual way: four of the band members reportedly appear at their gigs via live satellite feed. I have no idea what to make of this one! Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As the one who placed the speedy tag, I am obviously in favor of deletion. Even if notability is asserted (which I am not completely certain about), it still fails WP:MUSIC. Indrian 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm also not convinced notability is asserted. -- Steel 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Yunipo 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it completely fails WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. That's an amusing fact about them, but it doesn't really establish notability. (And wouldn't the satellite lag introduce some serious synchronization issues?) Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Sloan (radio)

Fails WP:BIO WP:NN local radio presenter DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - completely agree with nomination and reasoning.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former fat boys

A band whose studio is made of plastoic pipes and sleeping bags. Apparently they make references to Eminem; if it were the other way round that might be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Winning something from SomethingAwful doesn't make one pass WP:MUSIC. When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be about guys who lost weight, so it was certainly a better article than I expected to read, at least. GassyGuy 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if we can find sources. --Liface 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sources for what? Even if everything on the page is verified, how would they be notable? -- Kicking222 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for completely failing to pass WP:MUSIC in any conceivable way. -- Kicking222 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and reads like an ad. It could be rewritten to get rid of the ad qualities, but then what would be left? Originalbigj 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm trying to fix it. I corrected some of the information in it initially. I'm not sure who submitted it originally, but they screwed a lot of stuff up. I sent the band a MySpace message to see if I could get any additionaly information to add to the page. I think it definitely fits with WP:MUSIC's guidelines now. At the very least they are on AllMusic and have been on MTV.Mcchrisfan 26 July 2006
• Keep I was the one who originally wrote it, the band's site was down and I had to do a lot of the article from memory. The infomation is verifiable, and the article is informative and about a real band with a decent sized fan base, I really don't see a reason to delete it.

Soilwork 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no way this passes WP:MUSIC, although the Photoshopped "album cover" was good for a chuckle. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't believe they meet WP:MUSIC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Dog shit article about a dog shit group and I'm amazed by how long it took for AfD to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.231.62.139 (talk • contribs).. Let's keep it civil here, shall we? NawlinWiki 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not enough here for notability band. NawlinWiki 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ho Touchdown is no My Humps, and this is the first of the band I've ever heard of. Nate 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty less relevent bands with live articles on Wikipedia. It fits several caveats of WP:Music not limited to major radio play in both Chicago (the #3 market in the country), allmusic, MTV, and just a fairly large underground internet following. They're not quite mc chris but behind mc chris and mc frontalot, they're probably the next biggest thing in nerdcore. Just because a bunch of you haven't heard of them doesn't really make a vaild reason to delete. I've never heard of Shar Jackson and she's got a Wikipedia page that somehow fits WP:Music. mcchrisfan
  • The existence of "less relevant" articles isn't a reason to keep this article. It might be a reason to delete those articles, though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Struck through "keep" as the user had already expressed their opinion above. -- Kicking222 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:28, 31 July '06}
• Keep, it's better than a lot of articles, and even though I've never heard of them, they seem to have a large following. ONUnicorn 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, it still fails WP:MUSIC miserably. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if you are going to keep Stud(band) above, and it looks like you are going to, then you should keep this one too. GrapePie 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First off, that's not a reason for keeping an article. Second, and more importantly (?), this user is a suspected sockpuppet. -- Kicking222 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst I would have loved to have seen a newspaper reference, or indication that one should exist (eg, toured and well-known in local area), I did not. Shame. LinaMishima 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. I searched on Limewire... No results. <800 Google hits. But: Were on MTV's "The Reality Show" and the album is hardly photoshoped... It's on Amazon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newkai (talk • contribs).
• Keep There is a newspaper reference linked in the article in the external links section. A quick google this afternoon revealed the album is now available through Rhapsody and Emusic and according to the official site iTunes / Napster in mid-August. Torrent searches revealed links, though torrents were dead.mcchrisfan
  • Note: struck through again; see above. -- Kicking222 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armand Navabi

A student. Also a rapper, apparently, though his music appears to be available excluisively by download from his site. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, although he may ultimately prove just on the right side of notable in relation to his music (which is in a style I'd never even heard of until I read the article). BigHaz 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! He's at least notable enough that I'd heard about him before I found this page (and so have a number of other hip-hop nerds from Georgia Tech). Also quite good; you should take a listen. -- Alex R. ( http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~alexr ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.27.161.253 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Faint keep. I see no harm in this, the artist holds minor notability within the nerdcore genre and has been featured in Wired magazine. Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has now appeared in EE Times (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=179101995), and the "genre" appears to be gaining at least enough noteriety to warrant a brief reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.240.243.170 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's one of the bigger names in nerdcore and he's quite good. Beefy 8:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.252.111 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the above are correct that he has been featured in articles in multiple magazines, that meets one of MUSIC's notability criteria. Though these should be mentioned in the article. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Allmusic page and no record label? A one-graf article mention on Wired, and a brief mention on a mystery meat news site? Not enough, sorry. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. --musicpvm 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He's no MC Frontalot. Jacqui^★ 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:29, 31 July '06}
• Delete per nom alphaChimp ^laudare 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Passes WP:MUSIC (Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media). A story about Nerdcore rap in Wired (the bulk of which concerns him) and a front page and large story about him in a major IT magazine suggest he is very, very notable. (note: In no way should anyone interpret my defence of this article as support for the genre. I have a rep to maintain!) Drett 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - keep all bands per nom. GrapePie 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Wired and EE Times are both fairly good references. Perhaps merge into a list (always a good way to deal with stubs). LinaMishima 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Shrek05 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've added some new material to the article. If people could have another look at it and perhaps reconsider their vote? Drett 02:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Legacy

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]}}

Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, also appears to be a WP:VAIN article. --Porqin 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is still new and has content that needs refining. Infomation and screenshots were taken from the main website, or from what has been said by developers on the forum (the information is publically available for use), so no, its not original content, but I find acurate information from reliable resources much more important, don't you? As for player base (I think this means the ammount of players it gets), the game has many 1000's of players. According to the developer, it was recorded that the game got around 172 new account sign ups in less than 12 hours! As for Vainity issue, it is no different from any other games page I have seen. The title, screenshots, infomation about the game, links to fan sites etc.... Theres no text such as "greatest game", "best game", "you'll die if you dont play" etc. I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. So my vote goes with "dont delete". If you want something changed, leave a note on the talk page, or do it yourself. --K776 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Thousands" of accounts is really not all that many. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • According to a dev on the forum, 172 or so new members signed up in a matter of hours. 172 (users per 12 hours) * 2 (2 lots of 12 in 24 :P) * 7 = 2400+ in only a week. Now those wont be the exact figures obviously because on/off peak signups, but it should give some idea that when I said thousands, I obviously understated. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That still isn't very much. World of Warcraft, for example, had around six million players in February 2006. The US release was in November 2004, so, assuming that players signed up at a constant rate, that comes out to roughly a hundred thousand new players per week. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thats not a good comparison. World of Warcraft is not shockwave based, and it's made by a big company with funding, not an individual in his/her spare time. World of Warcraft also had a prevous player base, from its 3 predecessors (Warcraft I, II, and III), starting with Warcraft in 1994 (12 years ago). World of Warcraft is also finished. Quantum Legacy is still in the pre-beta stages, but has been made public. --05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Point is, 172 users in a 12-hour period isn't all that many. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I said less than 12 hours. For all I know, it could have been in 5 hours or even 30 minutes. I just dont have time to change my timezone to that of the dev who posted the stats to find out what the time difference was. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This game - and this comment may be biased, note - is quite good, and still in the beta stages (I am a tester, myself). To delete this page would not accomplish anything, that I can tell, except to upset the programmers, testers, etc. There are 438 software companies listed on this site, and I recognize a few as being in on gaming (RealNetworks among them). I did not see any of the high-profile companies (such as THQ, but it is in the database of WP). To conclude: do not delete the QL page, as it is just as valid as the page for Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War, and other games.--Bigfootti 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable, in failure of WP:SOFTWARE, 100% advertisement... it's spam and little more. -- Kicking222 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well then, change it so it suits the guidelines or tell people what to do to make sure it doesn't get deleted. --K776
    • The first question we have to consider is whether Quantum Legacy is a worthy subject for an article in Wikipedia at all. The criteria we use to determine that can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If the game doesn't meet any of the criteria there, changing the article won't help. But if you think the game does meet at least one of the criteria at WP:SOFTWARE, then clearly indicate in the article how it meets those criteria, and cite reliable sources to help prove that. Then come back here and explain that you have edited the article and how the game satisfies WP:SOFTWARE. I will offer a neutral recommendation for now to encourage you to do that. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector. --K776 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page is not spam it is just trying to get more people to join with the game theres nothing wrong with that another thing is there are other articles just like it here on wikipedia and you are not deleting them it doesnt seem fair or even make sense to delete this page because its trying to get people to try out this game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sk8ter823 (talk • contribs).
• Keep This game is unique in that it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser. I think that this fact satisfies part 2 of WP:SOFTWARE well enough. And I don't think that it can be called advertising because it was not written by anyone affiliated with Four Thirty One Interactive, it was written by a group of players of the game. As someone has already said, it is just as valid as the article about Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War. That is why I vote to keep the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.27.115 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Looking at all the delete votes, they cite WP:VAIN, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:OR as reasons why this article should be deleted. I believe the reason QL is fine under Software has been stated clearly enough already, the article is not vain, as it has been written and edited by players of the game who weren't involved in the programming, design or promotion of it, and it is not original research, all statements made in the article are either clearly labelled as opinion/speculation or can be verified by four-thirty one. --Jabor 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The question isn't whether the statements can be verified by the game publisher/developer, but whether the statements can be verified by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Verify independently? 2 things: (One) Play it yourself, and offer judgement; (Two) recruit people from WP, and ask them to play and offer judgement. --Bigfootti 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If I played the game myself, or other editors played the game themselves, that would still be original research. Furthermore, if the goal is to prove that the game is unique because it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser, or because it's the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector, just playing the game would not prove that, since other games might meet those criteria too without my knowing it. On the other hand, if reviewers for, say, Computer Gaming World or PC Gamer confirmed those claims, that would be independent verification. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, Metro90, it is hard to get a game from an up-and-coming company into the limelight for such a review. WP may be the best way to do so. :) --Bigfootti 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Metropolitan90, are you saying that if I got it listed somewhere in say NetGuide (a NZ (and I think Au also) publication, then the page could stay? Or does it need to be in a US magazine? --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
            • NetGuide looks like a legitimate reliable source at first glance, although I personally am not familiar enough with it to say so definitively, and of course other editors may disagree. But, in general, there is no requirement that a reliable source be from any particular country. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Trouble is, even if NetGuide decided to publish it in their next issue, thats still two weeks away, and dont these types of debates only last 5 days? How would someone go about suspending the page (or archiving it) till its published? Cause a lot of work has been put into the article and deleting it would be a waste. --K776 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment: That is a False dilemma. Wikipedia admins can undelete articles at any time. Or alternatively (supposing the article can't be undeleted), you can take the content of the article,move it to a personal website, and improve upon it yourself. Or, if you really like the wiki format, create your own Quantum Legacy wiki --Mitaphane _talk 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kicking222. Gets 3000 google hits. The game should be notable before being added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. (also, I'm not sure what to make of the WP page being used in other efforts to to get the word out [5], but whichever) --Interiot 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The link on the digg to the wiki was for more information as its the only page at the moment that has lots of information on it without having to be searched for. So dont make a decision based on that :P --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Interiot. Don't try promoting non-notable things on Wikipedia in order to make them notable; it never works, even when they aren't found for a while, and deleting them takes up valuable time/energy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said it was for promoting the game? The game already has more than enough players. And it is notable. As said above, "According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector." --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I seriously doubt this was the first multiplayer Shockwave game - I'm pretty sure RuneScape was there first. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Zetawoof. Runescape is Java based. I am a programmer, and could give proof of RS's Java-ness, but I'd just be over people's heads.--Bigfootti 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Read it again Zetawoof. I said "first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector". I know there are other shockwave mp games. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Whatever. Point is, I don't think there's anything it's doing that hasn't been done before in some way, shape, or form. The mere combination of pre-existing concepts (like "multi-time" and "multi-sector", whatever those mean) doesn't really add up to something really "innovative and significant", particularly as there are no reliable sources confirming that this combination of features is indeed unique. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. It does seem to meet number 2 of SOFTWARE as K776 points out, but I'm not seeing any third party sources to that effect; it's pretty easy to simply claim to be innovative. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be some sockpuppetting going on here for the keep votes - K776 is a new user who created the page and exclusively edited this article, as is Bigfootti (8 edits, joined on the 26th), as well as 24.109.27.115 (3 edits, same day), Sk8ter823 (2 edits, same day) and Jabor (3 edits, including one on this page). --SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I had mentioned on 2 QL forums that the wiki page was nominated for deletion (nothing wrong with that?) and that people could head on over and make their vote whether or not they wanted to keep or delete it and told them the decision is theirs so their decisions they make are in no way mine. --K776 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The issue, however, is that this is a discussion and not a vote. Just because there are 100 different accounts that say "Keep" does not guarantee the article will be kept. Mo0[talk] 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The game isn't doing anything but trying to be known why would you delete it's page when the game hasn't even come out yet.TYRQ
• Delete. Blatant advertisement for an ultimately non-notable (albeit rather shiny-looking) web game. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the open beta development path and browser / download approach seem worthy of mention. Ace of Risk 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The title is using a very unique system of content delivery and method of displaying that content. Its unique for that alone, as for the notability of the game outside this new system I am not sure. However seeing as they are the first to attempt, or at least publically acknowledge this method I feel its notable. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What "system of content delivery" and "method of displaying that content" do you mean - Shockwave? That's hardly unique. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete (revoted, see comment below) - Wow, the sock puppetry. You really should have brought only one person in here to argue for keeping it, since you're all saying the same thing, and none of the arguments are grounded in wikipedia policy. QL does NOT pass point 2 of the software guidlines - read the last clause of that sentence and you'll understand. You and I do not qualify as reliable sources. Basically, wikipedia is not free advertising. You've stated that you're not trying to advertise, but then encourage people to try it out for themselves. That's blatant advertising. Wikipedia is here to report the findings of *other* peer-reviewed publications, that's why verifiability and no original research are so important. Advertise elsewhere and let someone else not affiliated with the game make the article AFTER it becomes famous (and yes, testers are affiliated).129.61.46.16 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • The edits address the Vanity and NPOV problems in the original version, which certainly helps and shows good faith on the creators' part. I still don't think it passes the verifiability and original research policies (which are two of the most important policies here), since no independent peer reviewed publications have been shown to cover the game to date. And that is not Wikipedia's job. The edits are making it into a useful article, one that would be acceptable if it becomes notable enough without wikipedia's help. 68.106.198.28 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
    • If I've read it correctly, original research means information that isn't reliable/doesn't have a reliable source, right? Well, everything on that page has been said by the developer of the game, Miles. How much more reliable can you get? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, not exactly. Let me give you an example - if Stephen Hawkings were to come to me and say that his theory on Hawking radiation was patent nonsense, then that would not be acceptable to be put on wikipedia, even if I could provide proof of the email. If the New York Times reported that he said it, it would be reported that "in 2006, Stephen Hawkings raised objections about..." on a wikinews article, and might get a mention on the Hawking radiation page in a controversy section. However, until he published his findings in a peer reviewed scientific publication, the article would retain the incorrect information, as it is the most verifiable. I realize that it's difficult to draw analogies between hard science and small online games, but similar standards apply. If the game developer has publicly stated the design intentions of the game in a press release (or equivalent), then it can be mentioned that they said that - but one man's personal opinion, no matter how intimately he knows his subject, is Original Research until it has been peer reviewed. Ok, this is getting long, but I hope that helped clarify the policy as I understand it. 68.106.198.28 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
• Comment - Even more wow as I try to edit the article to remove the worst of the advertising and to tag all of the things that might not be advertising if they can find sources to back them up...the article uses the word "you" in reference to you as a player so many times that I'm not going to bother trying to remove it. That's blatant and terribly bad encyclopedic style, and wonderful advertisement style. Rewrite the article with an emphasis on how independent publications have reported on the game, instead of why someone should sign up. Otherwise, it is an advertisement and has no place in an encyclopedia. 129.61.46.16 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • All references to "you" have been place with "a player". --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete i do not believe that this game is notable at this time, but that in the near future it will be. all those angry developers can request undeletion when their game meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Samael775 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This might become one of those great information sites about games...why would we want to delete it? -Qsik-
  • Comment Because, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it does become notable in the future, it can be recreated, but for now it's simply not. Wikipedia reports, but does not promote. And if it does eventually become notable enough, the article would *not* look anything like the current one, so there's not much point in saving the current version. 129.61.46.16 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
• Quantum Delete - Notability first, article second. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • ^ Pointless comment above. ^ I checked the 'under developement' category page, and there are a large number of games on there which have had little to no large-scale publicity. This article has just enough information to get a reader interested, and has a full web site to back it up. I looked up some other UD games, and found Galaxylife, whose release date is marked as 'soon'. QL, on the other hand, is in open beta, and is arguably full-featured, compared to some post-release games. The largest obstacle to the release of QL is thhe fact that some bugs still need ironing out, and somewhere around half the (SP) storyline is unpublished (to the testers).--Bigfootti 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Fails notability, unreleased, WP's not a crystal ball. Thank you, come again. I just like a little humour at times. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In the case of "under development" games, those articles are (or should be) nothing more than stubs, placeholders that give information in a press release (usually circulated in peer-reviewed publications) about expected release information. If the article is basically blanked and says that QL is an upcoming MMORPG with X release date, will be set in X world, and will run in the X environment, then that's all the article needs. The fact that other articles don't do that just means that other game developers are abusing wikipedia as well. The current article does nothing more than gush about how great it is and how you should sign up and play. Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics that a paper encyclopedia wouldn't because of space constraints, but it is still an encyclopedia, not free advertising space. 129.61.46.16 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
      • This discussion could go on until QL is oficially released, and we'd still not have a satisfactory solution. QL is a free and open beta, effectively released, and being upgraded and bug-checked regularly. As such, it coincides with both full-release and UD game headings.-Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Josh, if say 99% of the page was to be deleted out then, would that means the actual article could stay there until it is notable, then be reverted back to the revision atm? Or is that againsr wiki policy? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - let it grow organically. GrapePie 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep three diferent editors and an article on a fairly bit stratergy gaming website count strongly in it's favour. Needs POV tagging and hence POV fixing urgently, however. Would perhaps be best merged into a list of garage/bedroom games. LinaMishima 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please clarify: POV? -Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Point Of View. As in (follow the link) WP:NPOV. Vizjim 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • POV has been neutralised to some extent :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this WP:NPOV article. Vizjim 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 The Quantum Legacy article has been changed based on 129.61.46.16's feedback (regarding citations and facts)
 Please re-evaluate the article based on WP:VAIN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (not WP:SOFTWARE) and continue to offer comments on where it would be improved by editing the article or the talk page. Thanks, K776 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising, unless good verifiable sources meeting WP:RS are cited that say that this game is important. Currently, no sources are cited at all, and all external links are to sites which fail to meet reliable source guidelines because they are to forums to which anyone can post or to a website whose content is controlled by Four Thirty One Interactive. Such sites could be acceptable sources of information on game content, but they are not reliable as an indication that the game is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont suppose MoFunZone or StrategyInformer count as reliable sources? They are pretty common websites. Does it have to be published print articles? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither site has any significant information - all they're doing, as far as I can tell, is linking to the game. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The medium doesn't matter - it's perfectly acceptable to use online sources. Those particular websites, however, don't say anything notable about the game that could really be cited in a wikipedia article. 68.106.198.28 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
      • Actually, its verifying information (which everyone wants). Strategy Informer clearly says in its description "it will also feature a unique "multi-sector" style of game play", making that inovative and significant with a reliable source, right? It even says "This innovative breakthrough.....". What more do you need? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • What more do we need? A review that was written independently. That text was taken straight from the Quantum Legacy site. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, most sites and probably some publications wouldn't do any better. Theres not a lot of ways to say the same thing. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Sure they would. All the major game review sites - Gamespot, for example - write their own reviews. Using the text from the product web page is on about the same level as would be using the back-cover text to "review" a book. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Mofun zone appears to just be a generic game information page. Instinct says that the website listings are not limited to the notable. LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Strategy Informer entry contains a link to an interview with the developers which gives the game merit. However a single source is rarely enough LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Lina - the single reference to the interview helps (and the interview is an example of what should be cited in an article), not exactly enough, but it helps. JoshWook 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It is rare of anyone voting on an Af to go check an AfD'd website's forum, find the "omg, AfD!" thread and make helpfull comments. This is, thankfully, one of my little hobbies. K776 is to be aclaimed for being unusually gracious in this debate. Posted that:

1) Article is likely to be deleted due to lack of notariety

2) Notariety should be easy to get to allow the restoration of K776's work

LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Also worth noting that correct name should be "Quantum Legacy (game)", since there is a book by this name about Quantum physics. (seperate comment as is different point) LinaMishima 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll change it once I'm done editing then. :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, fails WP:WEB --Peephole 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No independent, reliable sources used to provide any evidence of being notable in accordance with the proposed standards at WP:SOFTWARE or the standards at WP:WEB. GRBerry 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I updated the daily AFD page to reflect that this AFD discussion has been moved to a different page. The broken period was presumably less than 24 hours. GRBerry 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? The article, while it very much needs a ton of work, has the essentials for a CVG article. Lots of stuff should be moved around , citations are needed, as well as the "game under dev" tag, but it seems that it's a very valid article in and of itself. I must be missing something, big time. Keep Scytheml 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate is admittedly somewhat confusing at this point, and for good reason. Since the beginning of the AFD, the article has been edited heavily - most of the earlier discussion was about a version of the article that would indeed never be acceptable on Wikipedia. Since then, it's really turned into a debate over notability, which is more subjective. Just hope that clarifies. JoshWook 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well filled out article. Havok (T/C/c) 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I utterly reject the original research claim for games. The only way one can become familiar with a game is to play it. You read books, watch movies and play games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Soft systems, as the content is already there. Mangojuice^talk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root definition

Tagged for speedy as "non-notable neologism" which os probably accurate but not a valid speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete By creating such a definition --Porqin 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I recommend looking at Soft systems#Sources. That this concept has been recently coined does not imply that it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Uncle G 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Self-referential neologism. (Or, perhaps WP:NFT made up in a semantics class?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Am adding more URLs to the article to try to indicate that this isn't just something that was made up by me! Wrightdn 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please fill in the missing fields. Also please note that citing sources from the outset usually avoids having one's articles nominated for deletion. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Given the cited sources, which are from multiple authors and which explain what a root definition is, it appears that this concept is verifiable and not original research. Keep. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Soft systems, as it is not much more than a dict def and only makes sense in that context. -- Koffieyahoo 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Soft systems. As noted above, it makes no sense to give it it's own article, whilst with soft systems it is almost important enough to warrant a catagory to itself. LinaMishima 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would be happy to see this merged with SSM material since it is a component of that methodology. The only reason this was created as a new entry was because the SSM page does not expand on any of the methodology's components (e.g. system dynamics, rich pictures, root definitions, etc.). They are all assigned their own pages elsewhere (hence the creation of a new page). --Wrightdn 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin McGuire

Userfied and reposted. A minor theatre actor, part of the current touring cast of Cats. Probably more notable than half the so-called slebrities on TV, and undoubtedly more talented, but still no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-G4, recreation of deleted material. Understudies aren't notable no matter what musical it is, and he also played a very minor character that isn't even in some productions of CATS. Also, his TV credits are unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete by nom and Coredesat. -- Koffieyahoo 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:BIO and if it truly is a recreation of deleted material, simply put the speedy tag on the article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable yet. NawlinWiki 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and Coredesat. --Bigtop 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I don't understand the idea of merge votes to a non-existent article. It doesn't make any sense to rename David Keffen to List of fashion photographers. Keep votes seem not to argue for keeping this article. Mangojuice^talk 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Keffen

The page is essentially an ad for wedding photography service, does not meet the Wiki standards for biography, and should be userfied. SteveHopson 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom Doc 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe remove the article from the fashion photography article links rather than delete. David is known in the UK for wedding fashion photography as well as actual wedding photography.

• Merge into fashion photography or possibly into a new article titled something like List of fashion photographers. It is verifiable but insufficient on its own merits as an article. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might consider starting a links section in the article about wedding photography for the best known of the world's wedding photographers such as: Bambi Cantrell, Yervant, Martin Schembri, David Anthony Williams, Geoff Ascough, Peter Prior, David Keffen, Jo Buissink etc, etc. User: mike_wax [[6]] 13.49 GMT

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, do not userfy. Userspace is not for advertising any more than article space is. User:Angr 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge List of fashion photographers sounds like a nice idea to me, however the lack of any notable references states delete clearly to me. LinaMishima 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, He is known in the UK. Just remove the link from the list of fashion photographers in the Fashion photography article and leave in the list of photographers Photographers.User:Griss 00.50am (BST)
• Comment While my vote stays Delete as placed in the original listing above, I don't understand the Merge votes at all. This is an article on a person, how do you merge that with anything? Doc ♬ talk 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Explanation A person can be considered to be part of a group of people. In this case, photographers of various ilk. Hence you can merge a person's individual page into a list of people page. This allows less notable people to still be mentioned, but not to an unwarrented level (ie, having their own article). LinaMishima 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the above comment. Do not merge. Em-jay-es 05:48, 1 August 2006(UTC)

• Keep. See comment by Griss and anonymous comment Re: David is known in UK. Although not as well known as Bailey and the like, he is relatively well known within the fashion photography business for his work in wedding fashion. I heard him interviewed by the BBC on radio around three years ago and he has featured in one or two documentaries over the last few years that I know of. I'm inclined to agree with Griss that maybe his name should be removed from the Fashion photography article, but left in the general list of well known and less well known Photographers. It would not, in my opinion, be suitable to userfy. This doesn't appear to have been written by the subject who refers to it with indifference in a recent entry within his blog. I might attempt to start an article along the lines suggested by Mike Wax. User: Robin James 11.34 5th August 2006 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Shagia. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shigia

This was proposed for deletion as unverifiable, I'm hoping someone will be able to find a source. Kappa 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I have made some attempts to find these Shigia, but I have concluded it is a hoax, as all info found was clearly mirrored from Wikipedia; and Google Books Search didn't give more info. Consider also the creator of the article: in all his editing career he has made one single edit, this one, which is quite suspect.--Aldux 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite I think this refers to the "Shaigia" tribe around "Korti" in Sudan cf [7]. Transliteration of Arabic is a problem. Dlyons493 Talk 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep (as a redirect) I've turned it into a redirect to Shagia and merged the content. [8]. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:V. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete on grounds of unverifiability. --ForbiddenWord 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect As has already been done... LinaMishima 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kirby series characters. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirica (Kirby)

This is a character with a relatively small role on the Kirby anime- not enough to have her own page. She already has a description over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_series_characters#Sirica so this extra article isn't needed, and just has a lot of poorly written junk info (and unmarked spoilers!) Ivyna J. Spyder 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion: Although this is a character that appears rarely, I know that a few people like researching their favourite characters and I happen to be one of them. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.172.68 (talk • contribs).

- The article still isn't needed. The character is covered on the other page just fine, there is nothing important added on this one, most of it is just speculation and no actual facts. --Ivyna J. Spyder 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• WP:FICT is quite clear that minor characters should not be given their own articles unless they are extremely important. I know enough of Ivyna to trust her judgement on Kirby issues. If any useful detail in this article is missing from the description in Kirby series characters, merge it there, then redirect this (it's not a terribly likely search term, but it's plausible, and redirects are cheap). — Haeleth Talk 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Lots of NPOV and OR problems. If you trim the article to remove the OR fluff, you're left with the rather nice description posted at Kirby series characters. - Wickning1 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Merge and Redirect; while you are at it, remove the OR and speculation, would you? --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom-- Mertens21  ^Talk  05:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect, Duplicated by Kirby series characters#Sirica. I also don't think there is anything useful to merge that isn't original research or unsourced. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kirby series characters, nothing to merge. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge as above, Kirby series characters would be the correct place for this entry. LinaMishima 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JCXP

Contested prod. Advertising for website with no indication of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB --Bschott 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Alexa rank of 66,745. No sign of anything significant or any reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB. --Hetar 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per previous arguments. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HeroITES

Company advertisement, might suit WP:CORP, but this text is unsalvagable.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as blatant advertising copyvio of [9]. Would speedy as CSD:A8 if we had caught it earlier. --Alan Au 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and put in a real article. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio per Alan Au. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compute Area Network

Protologism; I believe this is not a well-established term. The google test reveals only 4 hits, plus this page on wikipedia. Adding external links to 2 of those 4 hits doesn't change anything. The WP:NEO page indicates that "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." -- Bovineone 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Bovineone 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a real term, but it's not widespread enough to warrant an article, and WP:NOT a vehicle for promoting term usage. Page can be recreated if term gains more traction. --Alan Au 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retain (with possible rename?). As mentioned in the rejoiner on the discussion page, there are various similar phrases used to refer to the same concept such as Compute Resoure, Compute Layer, Compute Paradigm and Compute Pool. Put together these references total over 1,000 hits on Google. This article was an attempt to bring together what was essentially meant by each of these phrases under a single moniker. Would the Wikipedia community be more comfortable if the definition was renamed to e.g. Compute Resource (the most prevalent term in respect of Google hits) with cross-references to the related terms including Compute Area Network? --Jellyfish@lineone.net 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. Took me a while to figure out that this is an extension of the SAN concept. -- Koffieyahoo 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not related to SAN at all, compute area networks are about the dynamic allocation of processing and volitile memory LinaMishima 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that grid computing? At least the references in the article seem to present it as an extension of the SAN concept. -- Koffieyahoo 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, you may well be right! Looks like what I'm thinking of is technically a subset of grid computing, yes. This article is covering what is basically yet another buzzword for the same thing, then. LinaMishima 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is a better, more common term for this, but I can't remember what it is for the life of me :/ LinaMishima 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• original research as CAN defines term for a new paradigm in relation to virtual computing. Current grid models apportion compute cycles/resource elastically to a single problem / defined set of problems across multiple physical nodes and interconnected software resources. The CAN concept avoids the multiple physical execution environment scheduling required by such concepts by dynamically creating appropriately sized software execution environments (SEEs) (i.e. single OS instances in a statically defined environment) and moving virtual images (files) between differently sized virtual 'physical' environments. The limits of the solution are the maximum sizes of virtual machines used in the hardware 'pool' used to create the CAN. Until this neologism is endorsed by community/industry players, it must, by wikipedia rules, be excluded. --Boiledfrog 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I represent TechTarget. This conflicts with CAN - See : http://www.canopendesign.com/ TechTarget 07:32, 02 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be a reason to disambiguate, but not to delete. Kfor 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename All of the above and in particular the last comment from TechTarget would seem to re-inforce my suggestion that the Term should be renamed to Compute Pool. To re-iterate my earlier comments whilst the phrase Compute Area Network in itself is a neologism/protologism, the concept it is trying to define is not. Under the aforementioned google test (apologies not sure of the syntax to allow AND Virtualization into the Google URL, Googlers will need to do this manually) searching for the Term Compute Resource and Virtualization returns many more hits than Compute Area Network, so again my comment to the Wiki community is would it be an acceptable option to rename as Compute Resource with the same definition?

• Comment Concerned from Edinburgh. Virtualization with an S or Z (Z...sigh....) is not a "real" word so any real words, acronyms, abbreviations etc are preferred in a Google society which dilutes the English language. Edinburgh 11:43, 02 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BluWiki

Article is spam for a website, created by the webmaster himself.--Peephole 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, also Alexa rank is just 333,178. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is sadly non-notable. However, I do not believe the purpose was spam. //Ae:æ 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, allow the article grow organically. --Yunipo 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete leaving aside the motives for its creation, there's no sign that this site passes WP:WEB in any shape or form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely agree with Angus.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hmm, unpopular wiki-host which doesn't let you create your own wiki, has server problems, and in general appears to have no future? I'd say the last is a good description of the article's future... --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (organically). NawlinWiki 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it just isn't notable (but I don't know if it's really spam). Ruaraidh-dobson 08:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OnQ Hilton Technology

Pure vanispamcruftisement. Self-promotional advertisement for a corporate turnkey solution. Author Kmans06 (talk • contribs) removed speedy deletion request tag. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "OnQ Hilton Technology" piece is similar to HHonors and Hilton Hotels Corporation that is currently posted onto Wikipedia. The piece simply informs users what the term means, what it is, and references links to obtain additional information. Similar to the MicroSoft Office posting, the Starwood and its Preferred Guest program posting, the HHonors posting, or the Linux posting - all currently on Wikipedia, OnQ Hilton Technology informs users about a "product." Wikipedia is the quickest way to look up information on a subject. Like all other postings, the OnQ piece "serves up" brief information for users in a single, accessible location that is easy to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmans06 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Please see WP:CORP#Criteria_for_products_and_services for Wikipedia guidelines on products. OnQ is non-notable by those standards. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As it says on the previously approved Wikipedia posting for Microsoft Office, "Microsoft Office is a suite of productivity programs created or purchased by Microsoft and developed for Microsoft Windows, and Apple Computer's Mac OS and Mac OS X operating systems." OnQ is the... proprietary technology platform, comprised of a suite of highly-integrated components ...business intelligence. Neither companies are advertising or doing Vanispamcruftisement, but are solely informing users of the program/components. External links are also listed to validate the information provided, as well as to provide users with links for additional research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.40 (talk • contribs) .
  • Reply: This article is currently an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article right now. "OnQ is revolutionary...helps sell rooms and services and build customer loyalty." Where's the neutral point of view or verifiability in this article? The WP:CORP guidelines also require that any product mentioned must be have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. So by all means, please cite some reliable sources that reference OnQ. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: To satisfy certain requiremnts, ...helps rooms and services and build customer loyalty" was removed. Additional references were added.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like an advertisement (the bold italics are a dead giveaway). Pburka 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with both nomination and also Pburka's comments.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It may also be a copyvio; see www.scps.nyu.edu/docs/general/marketing/Hospitality2010.pdf --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - looks like an advertisement. --Bigtop 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: Again, to satisy the board, the bold lettering was removed throughout the paragraph. The OnQ page is comparable to the wikipedia page for MicroSoft Office; both are a "suite of" components/technology/applications, etc. Independent references were provided as requested as well. Are there more suggestions? The OnQ information and definition is similar to the MicroSoft Office posting. Are there any suggestions, that may give indication how to draft the OnQ page so that it is acceptable to the board's standards and so that is similar to Microsoft's page, which has already been accepted (as a legit posting that has not been mentioned as an advertisment page).
• Delete... my understanding after reading the article is that it's an in-house software product that the company uses. Most, if not all, companies have these. Does not seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Would make a nice little entry within Hilton Hotels Corporation, but serves as an endless stub as a seperate article. LinaMishima 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per LinaMishima|. --Anirvan 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep the disambiguation. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarfraz

Defining the meaning of a name only. Wikipedia is not the phonebook of all names. Contested prod. Mangojuice^talk 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Disambiguate. Using Akhtar Sarfraz and Sarfraz Nawaz. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Expand list people who have names with sarfraz. have to disagree with Mango. wikipedia does list names . eg John (name) --Ageo020 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia lists some names, but not all. Just because some are listed doesn't necessarily mean that others need to be. BigHaz 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Henning Makholm 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT I am 22 years old and did not know the meaning of my name till i typed it in. Do not delete as this does not appear anywhere else online

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are plenty of baby name sites on the web already. Pburka 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in its present disambiguation form. Pburka 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Wholeheartedly agree with nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Disambiguate and I'll go do that now. ONUnicorn 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Disambiguate obviously intended to be a disambiguation list. Most likely to hold middle eastern people, which is something wikipedia is classically lacking in. Something to be encouraged, I would say. LinaMishima 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in disambiguation form. Names are legitimate disambiguation pages. GRBerry 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mangojuice^talk 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masters of cinema

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]}}

Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000.[10] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000.[11] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. --Allen3 ^talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• What does "contested prod" mean? This article describes what the "Masters of Cinema" website is, and the associated "Masters of Cinema Series" of DVDs. A famous boutique DVD label in the UK. What claims in the article require your verification? Why the mention of Alexa ratings? Peerpee 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Uncle G 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see all of the policy and guideline pages that are hyperlinked in the above nomination. If you want to make an argument that this page should be kept, you'll need to cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies one or more of the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom, and contested prod means someone tagged it with prod, and it was removed. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A site doesn't have to be popular to be important (and the converse is true: popularity does not necessarily mean a site is important). Masters of cinema is well known within the cross-section of two groups: (1) film aficionados and scholars and (2) the web-savvy. Try googling on it and clicking on various links amongst the results. In addition, they now have a series of DVDs that they collaborate on with Eureka (an indiciation of how seriously their site is taken), which, while not exactly rivalling The Criterion Collection in popularity, do rival them in how seriously they are taken amongs collectors of both obscure and canonical artefacts of cinematic history. Jun-Dai 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of giving vague and largely useless indications that there are sources out there somewhere ("googling and clicking"), please cite sources, as asked above. Uncle G 09:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You will find the Masters of Cinema website listed on the Carleton College Cinema and Media Studies department's Research Guide here: http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/cams/resources/research/. You will also find them listed among the Film Reference Sources on the University of Toronto Cinema Studies Department pages: http://www.utoronto.ca/innis/library/cinemaother.html. You will also find them listed among the recommended internet sources for a film class at the University of North Carolina Wilmington: http://library.uncw.edu/web/research/subjects/film/guides/fst377.html. As a selected web site on the Washington University in St. Louis library pages: http://library.wustl.edu/subjects/film/. As a research resource on the Wellesley College Library pages: http://www.wellesley.edu/Library/Research/cinema.html. On the Barnard College Library subject guide for film studies: http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/library/guides/film.htm. On the Purdue University Film and Video Studies department's internet links pages: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/idis/film-studies/links_internet.html. Among the internet resources on the Georgia State University Library's pages for film and video research: http://www.library.gsu.edu/research/resources.asp?ldID=75&guideID=0&resourceID=1. Among the film studies research sources for film studies on the University of New Hampshire Library's pages: http://www.reference.unh.edu/guides/filmstudies.html. You will find them listed among the links on Senses of Cinema, a major online film journal here: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/links.html. They are also on the links page of Bright Lights Film Journal, another major online film journal: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/sources.html. They were cited in the Internet Scout Report over two years ago: http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutReport/2004/scout-040507-geninterest.php. They were a Yahoo! pick over two years ago: http://picks.yahoo.com/picks/i/20040403.html. As a website and as a DVD producer, they have been cited several times in articles by Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic for the Chicago Reader: http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs24/col_dvd.htm. Their articles have been picked up by GreenCine Daily, a major film blog: http://daily.greencine.com/archives/000267.html. Plenty more where these came from. Msbailey 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)msbailey

Comment: While that is an impressively sized list of links, when looking for reliable sources to build an article from it is necessary to locate sources that talk about the article subject instead of merely provide a mention of the subject. Source statements such as "Seminal site devoted to world cinema on DVD", "focuses on - but not limited to - the world's major directors", "A non-academic site with some excellent links, in particular to information about directors", or being listed among a group of favorite blogs do not typically provide the type of information needed to build an encyclopedic article. Do you have any sources that speak about Masters of Cinema instead of about the movies that the website/organization deals with? --Allen3 ^talk 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: However, the whole point is that MoC is not merely an "impressive sized list of links". Look in the top right hand corner of the MoC site. They have (in addition to their own cinephile DVD Series) four distinctive branch sites (painstakingly crafted over the last 8 years by the MoC creators themselves) all of which contain unique (i.e., not found anywhere else — where else can you find a decent photo of the reclusive Chris Marker?) content. The four sites are well-known to cinephiles world-wide: The MoC Tarkovsky Site, The MoC Bresson Site, The MoC Ozu Site, and the MoC Dreyer Site. These all have original content written by, among others, family and close friends of these four filmmakers, and they consistitute an invaluable resource to researchers (i.e., users of wikipedia). I think most of the drive-by shootings in this debate (does not apply to author Allen3) stem from a lack of (or a mere cursory) understanding of the whole MoC concept. The MoC Wikipedia page will obviously need to clarify things better, once it becomes a proper stub.--Stalker63 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. This is one of the most valuable sources for cinema on the web. It offers not only intelligent, thoughtful analysis of great directors (such as Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson), but also is a invaluable source of DVD information. This site talks about discs from all around the globe, not just releases in North America. As cited before, Bright Lights Film Journal and the Chicago Reader have linked this website because of its very well researched information. I really don't understand why this website is scheduled for deletion. It's a real website that has been in existence for years, dedicated to those who take film/cinema seriously. I think that Wikipedia can save itself a lot of time by leaving this page alone, when there are much more egregious violations out there. I was at a comedy club recently, and a comic told a story about how he created his own page here (which, Wikipedia decided to delete). The Masters of Cinema website contributes a great deal to the world of film. If people really wish for things to delete, perhaps they should delete people like William Hung, the godawful American Idol contestant who has no artistic value whatsoever, and has made no contribution to society at all. Or delete Brian "Kato" Kaelin, O.J. Simpson's infamous houseguest, who aside from living at OJ's house at the time of OJ's murder trial, hasn't done anything worthwhile before, during, or after Simpson's trial for murder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pondbrilliance (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. This site has, over the years, been an integral part of my own education in art cinema. The Masters of Cinema (MoC) section on Andrei Tarkovsky [12] is second to none and has been acknowledged in the foreword (or acknowledgment sections) of every recent scholarly work on Andrei Tarkovsky, just two examples being Robert Bird's excellent Andrei Rublev (British Film Institute, 2005 [13]), and Sean Martin's Andrei Tarkovsky (Pocket Essentials, 2006 [14]). Chicago Sun-Times resident film critic Roger Ebert (of Siskel & Ebert fame) has also provided fascinating input especially written for this MoC site (see their Topics' section). The Masters of Cinema main site as well as their "micro-sites" ("micro" being somewhat of a misnomer) on Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, and Bresson are prominently featured in the latest edition of the acclaimed Time Out Film Guide: They write: What The Criterion Collection is to DVD Publishing, Masters of Cinema is to online DVD coverage (this was written just before MoC got into DVD publishing as well). Check it out for yourself next time you're at your local bookstore [15]. Director Paul Schrader provided specially written input to the Masters of Cinema Bresson site (see their December 7, 2004 news update [16]). Director Martin Scorsese provided a specially written essay for the booklet of their recent Rossellini DVD (MoC #10 [17]). Jim O'Rourke (musician), now a filmmaker, wrote a long essay for MoC for their Matsumoto release (MoC #32 [18]). Alex Cox has provided MoC with purpose-taped video introductions to their Naked Island release (MoC #12 [19]). And the list goes on... I would go as far as saying that it would be a grave mistake to delete this page, as it is such an incredibly valuable resource to scholars, filmmakers, and fans alike. I have no idea whatsoever what an "Alexa rating" is, but I highly doubt she's a patron of the Fine Arts. --Stalker63 (Effete Film Snob) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. A good website which would be great as a link resource for various film articles. But this is not an encyclopedically notable website (fails WP:WEB) that should get its own article. Also Wikipedia is not a free space for promoting websites Bwithh 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. That the site may be considered encyclopaedically notable is borne out by the presence of the high profile names that go on record here (right hand column), the frequent references to/reproductions of e.g., this article (e.g., [here]). The MoC Tarkovsky bibliography [[20]] is arguably the largest in existence and is used as a standard reference by the authors referred to above (Martin, Bird) and others (such as Milos Frys in his latest tome www.tarkovskij.wz.cz and [Michael McCormick],...), as well as by film school students around the world (if we are to believe the readers' letters occasionally published on their site). The MoC Bresson site caught the attention of Gary Indiana, see his (I dare say) historically interesting letter [here]. Whatever its failings, there certainly is no lack of encyclopedic value, in my mind. MoC has turned into a bit of a "phenomenon" (l will resist comparisons to William Hung). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stalker63 (talk • contribs).
  • Struck out the keep, as this is the second keep by Stalker63. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to delete this page
• Delete, as stated by Bwithh, no evidence has been provided to show how this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ironically enough, the alexa rating has gone down since its original nomination. It's now a whopping 886k, and clearly a failure of WP:WEB. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Surely the WP:WEB should not be the only criterion for evaluation of this entry. MoC is not only a website but also a DVD label. If entries for other DVD labels are allowed to remain on Wikipedia (Kino International, Image Entertainment, Anchor Bay Entertainment, Blue Underground, Digiview Entertainment, Synapse Films, The Criterion Collection, and so forth), why not MoC?--Msbailey 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. I'm not stopping you from bringing them to AfD. My guess is that they are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, but you're always welcome to express your dissenting opinion. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Question. Well, instead of arguing for the deletion of every other entry on a DVD label as well, how can I go about arguing for keeping this particular entry on the basis of MoC being "sufficiently notable to merit inclusion"?--Msbailey 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:CORP guidelines would be the appropriate thing to gauge a claim for inclusion as a DVD label, if that helps.--Isotope23 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — see MoC mention in the current issue of CinemaScope vol 27 (MoC mention in an earlier Vol. 24 was referred to above). Hardly a mere "price listing", nor a simple "media reprint of press releases." Fwiw. --Stalker63 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone thinks Alexa ratings are relevant to this conversation. Surely there are better things you people could be doing than going around and trying to get every article under some arbitrary alexa rating deleted? I can understand that the original version of the MoC article was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point. Jun-Dai 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, some people use Alexa rankings as a gauge of website notability or popularity. These are not however part of the core guidelines of WP:WEB, personally I don't put much stock in Alexa rankings, but this is a gathering of opinions and opinions will vary. All the fuss is about whether or not this entity, Masters of cinema, meets the accepted guidelines for inclusion here (WP:WEB and WP:CORP) or if they don't, what extinuating circumstances or compelling arguments exist that would make a strong case for why said guidelines should be ignored in this case. you may not agree with the guidelines Jun-Dai, but they are the guidelines that are in place here, so your energy would probably be best spent arguing how Masters of cinema meets one of those guidelines, or why we should not apply those guidelines to Masters of cinema. Hope that explains it a bit better.--Isotope23 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the citations listed above and below already qualify it under those criteria. At the very least, nobody has really tried to counter them. Given that everyone seems to be ignoring them, I wonder what the point in continuing further is? In any case, given that we have at least four distinct people supporting the article's continuing existence, what happens next? Do we delete it because we could fail to build a consensus for keeping it, or do we keep it because the delete-happy users in favor of deleting failed to drum up enough support against the article? I've never involved myself this much in the deletion process, so I'm curious to see where it goes. Jun-Dai 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment, for sake of clarity, let me just state I'm not an administrator here or anything and I'm merely stating my own opinion. If you are refering to the list of links Msbailey provided, Allen3 basically answered why that does not meet WP:WEB. The first criteria of WP:WEB states "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet WP:WEB. Stalker63 also provided some links, but these were largely either links to sections of the Masters of Cinema site, or were external links to articles where Masters of Cinema were mentioned in passing, but the articles were not about Masters of Cinema. There has also been a claim made that MoC meets WP:CORP, but again meeting WP:CORP requires "multiple non-trivial published works" and I only see one external cite provided that has non-trivial coverage of one of their products. Where this goes from here depends on the closing admin. This is not a numerical vote, so the closing admin has to decide if there is consensus to keep, delete, or no consensus either way (no consensus defaults to keep). Generally, newly registered users and those who render opinions from IPs without creating a user have their opinions weighed less unless they make an actual argument based on the accepted guidelines and policies at Wikipedia. Basically, the admin is looking for a consensus, though I've seen cases where numerically the consensus was split, but the result was either outright keep or delete because one side did not make a compelling argument. Usually the whole process takes roughly 5 days from nomination. Hope that clears it up. Also Jun-Dai, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia editors who disagree with your position "delete-happy users" doesn't really add much to the debate on the content and, speaking personally, doesn't really entice me to continue take the time to try and explain the process to those unfamiliar with it...--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the delete-happy comment, and am retracting it. I'm just bewildered by the concern for deleting the article. Also, Allen's rebuttal was posted after my response, and is the first time that anyone even acknowledged the citations.  :-( Jun-Dai 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment, fair enough. I know how frustrating it can be to see an article you started/worked on (or about a subject you feel strongly about) brought for deletion and people argue to have it removed. Beyond that, Wikipedia guidelines, and processes seem fairly obtuse and arcane if you are not familiar with them, which doesn't make it any easier.--Isotope23 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Thank you, Isotope23, that does help. If one looks at MoC as a DVD label (not just as a website), one will see that they are, in fact, highly notable. Several of their DVDs have been featured as 'DVD of the Month' in Sight & Sound, the film magazine published by the British Film Institute. Their DVDs often show up as 'DVD of the Month' and in best-of-year polls on DVD Beaver (a website with a low Alexa rating and no Wikipedia page but which has been cited numerous times in the New York Times): http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/feature.htm. As noted above, filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Paul Schrader; scholars such as Tony Rayns, and Scott Eyman; and critics such as Kent Jones, Phillip Lopate, David Ehrenstein and Bill Krohn have all created exclusive content for MoC's DVD releases.--Msbailey 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The products seem very professional and notable. A great source of information on professionals in the cinema. GrapePie 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No difference between this and the Criterion collection (which you're not considering deleting), so I see no reason to delete it.85.210.180.115 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Apology - I forgot in my haste to click the "sign it" button on my last entry, as I was responding directly to a response to my already signed entry. I was not aware that there is a limit of one "keep" per person. If "this is not a vote" (as stated in the box at the top), why was my "keep" overstricken, as if it was a vote? I believe, personally, that the discussion itself has established that there is no justifiable reason to delete the page from the encyclopaedia. There are many good, considered reasons brought forward for keeping it, and mostly (not exclusively) a few pat responses and glib formal comments brought against. --Stalker63 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, It's a courtesy consideration. This isn't a vote, but it is an exercise in consensus building and multiple keeps or deletes make it harder on the closing admin to sift through who is an original contributor to the discussion, especially in very long debates.--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Agreed with Stalker63. Looking at all the comments on this page, it strikes me how sad it is that the Wiki-ites cannot quickly see the worth of both the Masters of Cinema Series of DVDs and this entry at Wikipedia from the information provided. There are numerous worthwhile profile entries of similar DVD labels (Criterion, Kino, etc.) which by virtue of their presence condone the "Masters of Cinema" entry. Seeing as most of you have a lot of time on your hands, may I humbly suggest a read of this page. Peerpee 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, saying there are other DVD labels that justify inclusion of this one is a straw-man argument. Those DVD labels either meet WP:CORP criteria, or they too should be nominated for deletion. The presence of articles about similar items or entities does not condone inclusion of a specific item or entity. Each article has to stand on it's own, meet accepted policies, and be subject to accepted guidelines. The question isn't whether or not "Masters of Cinema" has "worth"; it is whether or not it meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. There are tons of websites out there that to me personally (and a like-minded group of enthusiasts) have an immense amount of worth... but if I saw an article written about them on Wikipedia, I would sadly have to opine deletion becuase they cannot be proven to meet Wikipedia's accepted guidelines for having an article about the topic.--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP This entire debate is baffling by any standard. Why the Masters of Cinema site -- a storehouse of scholarly articles about the cinema, and more -- has to fight for retention of a Wikipedia page, while something like Ain't It Cool News seems to have been given the green-light for hysterical reportage in a "fanboy" key is crazy. Are we really voting for which Wikipedia entries get to stay on the basis of their "popularity" with a mass audience? Shocking and disgusting. --Evillights 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn website.--Peta 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to expound, Petaholmes? What does "nn website" mean? I've spent five minutes looking for what it might mean, and haven't found anything. Peerpee 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "nn" means "not notable". AndyJones 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously I can't speak for exactly what Peta meant in this particular instance, but some participants use "nn website" (non-notable website as AndyJones stated above) as an alternate term for "does not meet WP:WEB".--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Allow me to transcribe the first few sentences in the opening paragraph of a featured review of MoC's recent release of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Faust in the new issue of Sight & Sound: "During the last two years, Masters of Cinema has established a reputation as one of the UK's most enlightened DVD labels, assembling an eclectic catalogue which mixes such classics as Metropolis and Kwaidan with lesser known works by Dreyer (Michael), Renoir (Toni), Kurosawa (Scandal, The Idiot) and Nicholas Ray. Like Criterion in the US, MoC handles each title with loving care, creating some remarkable extras (including lavishly produced sleeve notes) and, more importantly, ensuring that its transfers are as complete as possible." A cursory search in Lexis Nexis shows positive mentions of MoC's DVDs in The Daily Telegraph (London), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Time Out (London), and The Liverpool Daily Post. If MoC does not meet the Wikipedia requirements for WP:WEB, it should by crystal clear by now that they more than meet the criteria for WP:CORP. But to keep harping on the importance of the website, here is the recommendation made by the American Library Association in their Choice magazine which highlights recommended books and Web sites for libraries: "Graphically attractive, informative, and user friendly, this invaluable Web site focuses on but is not limited to the work of major world directors. It is divided into numerous sections, the most significant of which are "The News Fountain," which runs down the left side of the main page and provides current news on directors and films (past and present), releases of historical and critically important DVDs, awards, and tributes. Down the center of the page is a month-by-month calendar of upcoming DVD releases of major films. The site's growing library of recent articles on international cinema is evident on the right side of the home page; there are links to articles and a list of more than 100 directors also included with links to at least a biographical essay and, at most, a Web site devoted to that director. This section also offers useful links to dealers in everything from DVDs and video to film posters; critical reviews; online writing support for budding screenwriters; and film publications. The particular appeal of this site is its commitment to world cinema-there is a good balance of international film and US movies, with overall emphasis on the achievements of the filmmakers and the films themselves. Summing Up: Essential. All film collections. August 2005."--Msbailey 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance.Eenspaaier 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki 24

No notability except for a passing mention in a New York times article. Wiki has only 1,209 pages. Google search delivered about 25000 results. Peephole 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Wikia. dryguy 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and make a passing mention on Wikia and 24 (TV series). Three other small wiki sites came up on AFD and were deleted from the main namespace: Encyclopedia of Stupid, Kamelopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica and thus sets a precedent. MER-C 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's already mentioned in the Wikia article. And of those three, only Encyclopedia Dramatica was deleted by the way. --Peephole 13:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant that they are no longer on the main namespace but moved off to some obscure part of the wiki. MER-C 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki 24 is one of the bigest and most active of the Wikia wikis. It is also the single largest database on 24 (TV series) around. I think that alone gives it credit to stay as an article. --Dan136 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Other, even larger wikis don't have an article or had their article removed as well. --Peephole 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RainbowCrane

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herakles (software)

WP:NN software/game - I get very few (maybe 3 or 4, that I can see) ghits DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per no,.--Peta 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Yunipo 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Um... a computer program which lets you play a game of Reversi/Othello is not very special... there must be hundreds of versions of reversi/othello programs, as it is quite simple to program. The very first othello computer program might be worthy of an encyclopedia article. This is not. Bwithh 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom DrunkenSmurf 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Bwithh.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bwithh Dlyons493 Talk 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Just another random computer program. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nn. --PresN 06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Count Your Blessings (Reginald Morgan song)

Fails to meet the 'Music: Notability' guidelines. Also, contains so little informatio that it is of no practical use. Adam Slack 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Never heard of it, and can't find much on it. At the very least, we'd need some source that it was a big hit. There's a song by Irving Berlin of the same name, that Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney sang in White Christmas, but this isn't it. Fan-1967 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral No, it's not as popular as Berlin's "Count Your Blessings (Instead of Sheep)" but it has gotten a few recordings of it waxed over the years. It would need to be renamed were it kept, though I'm not sure to what. Anyone attempting to research the tune will have better luck under the songwriter's real name, Richard Morgan. GassyGuy 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of the danat

Companion to deleted article on this alleged story's alleged author; article on author was deleted after afd, but for some reason this one wasn't. NawlinWiki 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Medtopic 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good catch; probable hoax. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy. This definitely looks like a hoax to me. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, likely WP:HOAX. Please note that a hoax article does not fall into any of the speedy deletion criteria, though ones like these make a strong case for their inclusion there... --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

IAR! :) --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enter Shikari

A band whoch has wisely chosen to publish its own music instead of signing with a record label, thus saving al the tedious business of meeting WP:MUSIC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No dont delete it, Enter Shikari are one of the most popular unsigned bands in the Uk, and they rule all. WIKI RULES TOO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.246.16 (talk • contribs).

This page deserves to stay up as it'll save the hassle of creating a new one when they hit the bigger time! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.58.233.129 (talk • contribs).

It smacks of shameless self-promotion to me... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.217.235 (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. That's OK; we're willing to put up with the "hassle", if it proves necessary. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hit bull. NawlinWiki 03:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Maybe someday when they hit the "bigger" time. --PresN 06:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep British magazine Metal Hammer describes them as "arguably the biggest unsigned band in the UK".[21] They are currently getting national airtime on BBC Radio 1's "Rock Show". [22][23] If they don't meet WP:MUSIC already, they're certainly borderline for it... the page does suck though. Vashti 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The band are constantly touring up and down the UK, and their upcoming tour in Autumn includes headlining dates in Academy venues. Plus, it's obvious they're going to be big. This time next year they'll be all over the British music press, if not sooner. - --Dan10k 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Keep per someone Molerat finally asserting WP:MUSIC criteria and providing sources to back it up... no it's not obvious they are going to be big... and construing such violates WP:NOT a crystal ball. However, if someone posts verifiable information (from a reliable source) that they are currently touring the whole of the UK, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.--Isotope23 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The band meets notability guidelines with a verifiable national tour (see http://www.ents24.com/web/artist/68681/Enter_Shikari.html, http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/article/?id=44948, http://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/artist/949730/?search_redirect=ENTER%20SHIKARI, http://www.gigwise.com/SearchResults.asp?SearchType=3&BandOrArtist=ENTER%20SHIKARI, http://www.seetickets.com/see/event.asp?e%7Cartist=ENTER+SHIKARI&resultsperpage=20&filler3=id1clickmusic etc). The article needs cleanup though. Molerat 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good enough for me.--Isotope23 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above documentation. GrapePie 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bigtop 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Karma Llama 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vashti. not to mention 119,000 Google hits. Calicore 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rje 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOOKSELLER+PUBLISHER magazine

NN Corp; most google hits do not seem to be articles about the company itself Valrith 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems like a NN trade magazine. SliceNYC 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as-is. C56C 07:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom and because of the all-caps Spearhead 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Magazine appears to be analogous to Publishers Weekly in the US, and is published by Thorpe-Bowker, which is owned (in full or in part?) by American book industry giant R.R. Bowker. 753 hits when searching Google for "Australian Bookseller & Publisher". Anirvan 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emco-tec_inc

Article created by user Emco-tec inc (only edit since then) regarding a very small avionics industry. It is not wikified and stubbish. Cantalamessa 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any external references to this (news references), so it appears to be non-notable, but I may be proved wrong. They have a nice web site though (http://www.emco-tec.com/). —Mets501 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find any indication of news coverage for the company, and they don't seem big enough to meet any other parts of WP:CORP. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete per above Spearhead 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Suhay

no sources and no real indication of notability Spartaz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep her first book Tell me a story seems to be notable and widely reviewed. The CNN review is quoted on its Amazon page under the Editorial Reviews section. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be WP:VAIN Creator of article is User:Fableauthor which seems to be Lisa herself. I've asked for clarification on her talk page, but have no response. The only substantive subsequent edit was wikification. I think much of this should be userfied, but I do think an article about Lisa Suhay is valid (notable and verifiable), but it should be written by someone else. Brian 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Changed delete to keep as I just received confirmation from Lisa Suhay that it is not autobiography. Another person posted the article from Lisa's account (which is why it appeared to me to be autobiograph). I agree it is notable and verifiable - my only concern was the possible autobiography. Thanks. Brian 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball

• Delete - there is an encyclopaedic article in here trying to get out. However, WP is full of articles kept in the vain hope that they will get cleaned up and we don't need another. Delete, and someone can start again if they wish. BlueValour 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks pretty good to me, and the CNN thing clinches it for me (assuming it can be substantiated; I've slapped a {{fact}} on that assertion). --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, here's the review [24], she also might be the same Lisa Suhay involved in a bizarre NYT situation: [25]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, might be a WP:AUTO violation (and might not be for that matter), but she meets WP:BIO and editing can deal with any WP:VAIN wording, etc.--Isotope23 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I confirmed that it's not autobiography and changed my opinion (see above) at this time there's no reason to delete - this article should be kept in my opinion 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball

• Keep - fix and cleanup. GrapePie 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff and link to CNN transcript, this subject passes WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Since the relisting, the consensus has been keep. The nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (for abuses of the AfD process). alphaChimp ^laudare 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alycia Lane

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable newscaster. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I remember the Dr. Phil piece which was nationally broadcasted and local notability is well established. Agne 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, nominator was a since-blocked sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. See [26]. Kirjtc2 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Agne. AgentPeppermint 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. HomeTOWNboy 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major-market TV personality; known to millions. -- Mwalcoff 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Pickard

Non-notable: ("george pickard" atomiks -wikipedia) returns 182 Ghits. Unverifiable: ("george pickard" crash delano -wikipedia) returns 8 unique Ghits. CheNuevara 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. But interesting to find out that George Pickard is the pen name of George Pickard. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought so too. Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? - CheNuevara 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unnotable conspiracy theorist. C56C 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Buckman

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Coredesat (at least I didn't have to mention A7...oh..damn) Yomangani 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Coredesat and per nom. --Bigtop 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy - Maybe hit itmboverload@ 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathy Gandolfo

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable newscaster. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Yomangani 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, nominator was a since-blocked sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. See [27]. Kirjtc2 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment and going by the page history, the original writer is likewise a sockpuppet? I'm not sure I understand what's going on here. Tychocat 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as article does not assert notability to WP:BIO standards, much less back it up with citations to independent reliable sources. GRBerry 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanatos's Memento

Independent film made by a company whose page was speedied last night, was intended to be shown as part of a festival, according to the page, but has no distribution outside DVDs and the Internet. (Note the comments from the article creator on the talk page.) Prod removed. Author has been notified. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't quite understand the reason for deletion of either the company page or the Film page, the purpose of both the Company's page (since we discovered it was added here) and the Film page was to allow for people to get information about our company. Being that we are a smaller company, not exactly fortune 500 stuff, our company has always followed a loose, internet based distribution system. This film in question, Thanatos's Memento, is our first major project that we believe deserved some attention before we released it to the internet. As such, the wikipedia page was added, on top of our blog having mention of the movie not being able to make it into the festival, but was being considered to be re-shot and later distributed. We are not trying to sell or push a product. The intention is to assist those who want information on our latest endevours yet cannot get access to our web page (as it is currently under heavy re-design, and being moved from our host as it seems to have a problem with us.

Quite simply, I vote Keep, although without the company page in existance I guess it'd be hard for people to find THIS page. Somehow, you all have. Zombi3 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page of this article, the company page likely failed the guidelines for inclusion of companies in the eyes of the deleting administrator. (This was the same criteria I used in the original proposal for deletion, just before it was speedied.) To be considered notable, this film would require verifiable sources - discussion of it in major publications, generally. With not even being released yet, and with that release planned for Internet only, it is quite likely not notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. If you have verifiable sources that can be added to prove notability, please do so, and they will be considered by editors viewing this nomination. Tony Fox (speak) 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but this film is non-notable. No reviews, no awards, no distributor. While the criteria for notability in film are not set in stone, in the past a film has to at least seen some screens (multiple film festivals, etc) to even be considered for notability. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Aguerriero. Very persuasive. Ifnord 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Sorry to hear that they are having problems with their site but Wikipedia is not a free host. Yomangani 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like a possible future candidate, but not a crystal ball etc. The movie isn't currently popular or interesting, so... --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable film. NawlinWiki 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N-sider

Fails WP:WEB. 39 distinct Google hits (some of it not pertaining to the site). No mention except for similar community sites. ColourBurst 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Artw 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The website meets criteria number three, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Many articles have been distributed through IGN, a site well-known in the gaming and entertainment community as well as independent of the creators of N-Sider. See http://cube.ign.com/articles/526/526186p1.html. Editorial Coordinator Jeff Van Camp with N-Sider cited in article from 1UP here http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3141783. Also content frequently transmitted through other well-known online "newspapers and magazines" like 4 Color Rebellion http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/07/19/twilight-princess-wii-controls-an-innovative-afterthought/. Also featured on several official Nintendo surveys about favorite websites to browse online, again with company like IGN, 1UP, and Gamespot. --Epochkun 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, as non-notable. Ifnord 01:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Epochkun, very good research you put into it, things I missed on my own that almost called for a delete vote. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as explained above. GrapePie 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Annual E3 DVD featured on other similar community sites; site referenced on Nintendo.com surveys (As noted above by user Epochkun), as well as collaboration with Nintendo of America on contests and online tournaments referring to new DS WiFi releases (See: Mario Kart DS Tournament). VectorBoy 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the entry is of far more quality than many others I've seen. Take at look at Wikipedia entry Nintendo.com for example. 2 August 2006

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

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

The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Gardner (broadcaster)

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop voting: this page is redundant, as it is already listed at Angela Russell's AFD page as a multiple related pages AFDJianLi 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Malpass

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop voting: this page is redundant, as it is already listed at Angela Russell's AFD page as a multiple related pages AFD. To vote for this AFD, do so at Angela Russell's AFD page instead. (Note to administrators: Please delete this page) JianLi 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Bloomquist

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop voting: this page is redundant, as it is already listed at Angela Russell's AFD page as a multiple related pages AFDJianLi 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Jennings

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop voting: this page is redundant, as it is already listed at Angela Russell's AFD page as a multiple related pages AFDJianLi 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ace Crusader

This article is being considered for deletion because of lack of information.

• Delete Has no decent info for this wrestler. Clay4president

At least add much more info to the article if you don't want it deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clay4president (talk • contribs) .

• Neutral I am too unfamiliar with the subject matter to evaluate without more research. The only reason I'm commenting at all is to post the Ace Crusader's profile at this blog/fansight since I already did that legwork.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the comment above mine (and added after mine) is directed at me, I think you misread; if it isn't, I'm invoking the Emily Litella clause.--Fuhghettaboutit

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable wrestler, never wrestled for a major organization. DrunkenSmurf 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, not a notable wrestler. Oddly enough there is a Michael Phillips that wrote a review about the movie Nacho Libre that generate more google hits with "Michael Phillips" and "wrestler" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life Alert

advertising pure and simple and doesn't appear notable Spartaz 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appaears that the product has been mentioned in papers for it's services for emergency situations[28]. Also, the president of the company, has appeared to have won an award from Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur Of The Year[29], I'm not entirely sure of that award's notability, so I'll just place what I found here. Yanksox 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. Not notable. Ismusee 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:CORP. (The last link for consumer complaints about the company suggests that advertisement is no longer correct, even if grounds for deletion.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - why not have article on these devices in general, since there are many companes that make them. Mattisse 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can write an article about this, but will Wikipedia allow me to just simply list top 5-10 companies that offer the product?

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to an article about these devices and the respective corporations like Mattisse said. Perhaps I've fallen and I can't get up can be merged with this new page. SliceNYC 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment to above: I would recommend leaving the 'I've fallen and I can't get up' article where it is. It was created years ago as an example of a catch phrase, and the fact that one of these sorts of companies popularized the phrase was completely secondary to who said it, when, and examples of its use. I could certainly see 'Emergency response bracelets' being a 'See also' on that page, though. Skybunny 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've added this article to Category:Companies of the United States. There is strong precedent for the inclusion of articles about notable companies, and as this company is the most-well known manufacturer of these devices I believe the article is keepworthy. ONUnicorn 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. if this were a real attempt at being encyclopedic, it'd be a generalized article about the devices in general. The one mention of consumer complaints (as an external link) doesn't come nearly to any sort of level of fairness or openness about the topic. Being "best known" (though this is as yet an undocumented claim) doesn't matter in terms of the article being pure advertisement. It's all about one company and its services. Tychocat 10:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but expand Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Messages

Non-notable company; fails WP:CORP. MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising space. Spartaz 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -Murcielago 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's unsophisticated humor, but it appeals to a lot of people. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - I remember hearing about this awhile ago, it did generate some news and it's a unique concept I think. I'll monitor to see if you post more informationmboverload@ 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As nicely as possible, I'd encourage "I've heard of this" to be a weak delete rational per the verification policy. More to the point, if I closed this debate I'd blip right over someone who opined keep in this manner, and most admins would do the same. - brenneman ^{L} 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? --mboverload@ 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Explicit verfiability trumps vague recollection, I believe he's saying. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also advertisement. Unable to find any non-trivial third-party articles to meet WP:CORP. A lot of Google hits for "celebrity messages" but these seem largely by competitors listing their own wares, and people giving shout-outs to their fans. If mboverload can document alleged news coverage, I'd be willing to change my nomination. Tychocat 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Ezeu 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of the Deathmount

Unreleased software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, and the only source on this is an unofficial website with an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+, which is not a reliable source.

Note that there are 20+ other wikipedia articles in the category Cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games which I will likely bundle together and nominate for deletion in a group if we have consensus that this should be deleted Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - clearly not worth keeping Spartaz 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I haven't nominated the others at this point, it occurs to me that we might just combine all of these into one "cancelled virtual boy games" article, many of them are basically one line articles. Something to consider. --Xyzzyplugh 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into an article on cancelled VB games per the suggestion above. Irrelevant side note: according to the article the game would have cost the yen equivalent of about $70 US. No wonder the Virtual Boy flopped! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, cancelled game software for a system that was a flop, not notable. (There's a category for this???! Delete all with extreme prejudice!) --Wine Guy Talk 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; article fails to assert its notability, and it's extremely unlikely any new information will become available that will change this. Being listed in List of Virtual Boy games is sufficient. -/- Warren 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into the suggested article. SNS 06:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If the result of this is to merge this article into something, it could go here: List_of_Virtual_Boy_games#Cancelled_games --Xyzzyplugh 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone thinks we should have a list of this kind of game, go write it. I'm not going to suggest that some poor admin be forced to do it. Mangojuice^talk 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancies.org

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 146,685. Jacek Kendysz 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete-Already has reference (or link rather) on the Dave Matthews Band page. I don't see this aricle moving beyond this stub. Also the claim of being the longest running fansite is incorrect as the DMB page shows. Agne 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, failing WP:WEB. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words for sounds

This article is quite... interesting. It doesn't really provide any encyclopedic value and it is clearly original research. I was contemplating a redirect / merge into onomatopœia, but the article isn't exactly about onomatopœia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - I think this falls under the apple pie clause of WP:OR (for example you wouldn't say 'the crash of steam' and 'the hiss of steam' is easily verifiable). Because of that I'm not sure how useful it is to an english speaker, but I can't see any immediate failures of policy.Yomangani 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the information per Yomangani, but maybe a new title is needed using a more technical term for this type of word. SliceNYC 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for non-native speakers as a point of reference, but may need a different category of classification. Mabuse 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this belongs in a dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• SMASH! BOOM! BANG! WHIZZ! KEEP! BoojiBoy 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep C56C 07:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or consider reworking and merging into List_of_Onomatopoeias. Sort of. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly lacking in encyclopedic relevance. User:Angr 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - breaches WP:OR - unsourced it can be nothing other than OR. BlueValour 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Note that neither keep recommendation makes a valid argument, policy should be referred to. Rje 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Cave

Minor location, not much encylopaediac value. Fancruft. GSR 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. I remember this location fondly, but it isn't even important enough to have a spot in the template. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its probably interesting for those interested in Pokemon. C56C 07:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge: Wikipedia is not a game guide. There have been a lot of recent Pokemon-related non-notable location articles. Cerulean City, for example, is notable. If there isn't enough encyclopedic information about a topic for it to ever progress beyond a stub, it should not have its own article. Dark Shikari 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft; WP:NOT a game guide. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Keep - half the articles on Wikipedia are game guides. Why exclude this one? GrapePie 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. And if half the articles on Wikipedia are game guides, delete them too. User:Angr 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per User:Angr. Tychocat 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tychocat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Dale Cearley

Looks suspiciously like Gastroturfing; this is an author whose principal claim to fame seems to be a book which is claimed as a "historically based refutation" of one of Jack Chick's tracts. According to Weregerbil, this guy publishes through a vanity press. Oh, and he was prominent in the Hanoi darts league. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Playing darts in Asia isn't notable. C56C 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Should we delete his organization, Libertarians Abroad? It brings less than 150 hits from Yahoo. C56C 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've gone ahead and prodded it. Molerat 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with a dart to the triple-20. NawlinWiki 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity publishing. And using David Icke as a source doesn't help. Dlyons493 Talk 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Kafziel 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G1) by User:Yanksox ([30]). --james^(talk) 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DaCrew

This article contains no real information about the topic. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - what is the topic, come to think of it? BigHaz 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Yomangani 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've marked it as {{nonsense}}. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elf fetish

I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but is this really a relevant topic? I mean, you can turn just about anything into a fetish, and that process is relevant (we already have an article about that, too), but surely the idea of having an article for every single thing someone has a sexual fixation on is counterproductive? Are we going to have a separate articles for hobbit fetishes? Ent fetishes? Highly specific food fetishes, like porridge fetishes? I mean, yeah, I exaggerate, but not that much. I just don't see any point in this. (Also, article cites no references and is probably original research, but that's kinda beside the point.) Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. (if you are going after them all you have your work cut out, Capt. : Sexual_fetishism#Other varieties of fetishism). Yomangani 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure I have a problem with most of the ones on the list (though a couple of them strike me as a little too specific). I'd say that most of them are widespread and significant enough to deserve articles of their own -- things like BDSM, smoking fetishism and the like are obviously well-established areas of fetishism. I got no problem with that. This one is just way too specific, though. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a fetish. Fetishes are sexual attraction towards objects, not people/characters. Also no sources, and no evidence of notability. Mdwh 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that this matters at all, but, well, uh, sure it is a fetish. How's that "graceful elfish person with pointy ears turns me on" thing different, in principle, from the "person with perfect feet turns me on" thing? -- Captain Disdain 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete C56C 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mdwh. Original editor should have got themselves a dictionary - the article title is meaningless. There's also no evidence provided that it's a particularly widespread phenomenon. Seb Patrick 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per me hiding evidence my fetish exists. Seriously though articles on every fetish is a bit overboard, I think the magnitude of this fetish would haev to be demonstrated as some fetishes are widely held and written about such as foot fetishes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and let me get back to writing my Gimli/Treebeard slash fiction. — Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, neologism. HGB 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This is the eleventh wikipedian to vote delete. WP:OR, too short for an article, and wtf, elf fetishes? lol Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (despite my personal admiration for Liv Tyler, mm' mm' good). Original research, no sources cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see how this could be expanded beyond dictdef, regrettably. (even when elves are hot. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would have kept if it had pictures, but it's just text. At least I would kept the pictures on my hard drive. Anomo 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Roy A.A. 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orlando Pelayo j.r

• Delete as a non-notable child actor. Prod tag removed previously by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can find no sources to verify this 'actor' even exists. Article really needs to be sourced and some additional info added. Personally I think it is a hoax but I'd be happy to be proven incorrect. DrunkenSmurf 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Generally, children this young are not used as voices in animation, so it is suspicious. Fan-1967 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as protologism. DS 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SDIMBY

A pretty clear neologism. I get absolutely no relevant Google hits. Prod was removed and phrase defended on the talk page. David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, notwithstanding the usual neologism defense (It's a great term if only people would use it). Fan-1967 01:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The term SDIMBY is a valid term and has been in use, although for a relatively short time. "Smart Growth" and "Smart Development" are two terms easily found through Google. Those that encourage these approaches to development are known as SDIMBYs. The application of the acronym is usually associated not with the urban planners but rather with the communities and the grassroots activists that are seeking a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the developers.

The term SDIMBY has been in use in Los Angeles for well over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Full disclosure: I'm the one who added the {{prod}}. SWAdair 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

SDIMBY is a needed term to help define the subtle but significant approaches made to development. There are nany terms like Yimby and NIABY that only recently appeared . SDIMBY is only the latest and shows a distinct difference between the others listed. There are other writers willing to expnd on this term, but only if it is not considered for deletion.Thanks for your diligent consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Mike Dillon 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per nom. I've dealt with development issues in large and small cities, covered discussions about smart development, and never heard this used. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and because the reasons proffered for keeping it raise issues under WP:V and WP:OR. Doctor Whom 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palpable Computing

Neoligism. All google hits on this term are related to the PalCom project in which context the term was coined. I could not find any independent sources that allow for the verification of the use of this term. -- Koffieyahoo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unbearable essay-ish goobledegook. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Almost patent nonsense? Molerat 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty darn close to patent nonsense. It's a collection of indecipherable jargon. At the least it's a neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above... it's pretty incoherent, so if someone wants to take it upon themselves to speedy this as patent nonsense, don't expect me to cry. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Tagged as such. Molerat 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur

Nominating this article as unsuitable for the english version of wikipedia. I think this is a school in India, although it's hard to verify that seeing as I could find no homepage for the school. Delete. Stubbleboy 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it being a directory entry, see WP:NOT. -- Koffieyahoo 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability or uniqueness. Yanksox 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A rewrite sounds cool. Yanksox 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite It's a postgraduate degree-granting institution [31] in Kerala - that's intrinsically notable. Obviously needs a rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't object to a rewrite. Yanksox 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite of course. This would be a Liberal Arts College in the US, or a University College in some other places. It is certainly Higher Education up to P/G level so it should be here. I have started the rewrite. --Bduke 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- it's suitable for the English Wiki- it's written in English, isn't it? This isn't the "American" Wiki after all. --PresN 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Institution of tertiary education. Piccadilly 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep we have tons of articles about indian univerities. there is no consensus for standards of notability concerning schools, so they are generally kept. --Samael775 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like we are looking at a keep consensus. Does anyone object to me moving the article to Sree Kerala Varma College from Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur?? Thanks! Stubbleboy 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: This article has been moved from Sree Kerala Varma college, Thrissur to Sree Kerala Varma college

Stubbleboy 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly a notable college but could do with a rewrite. Tintin (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Universities and similar tertiary educational institutions are notable. Yamaguchi先生 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Indeed a notable college. It was established by the erstwhile King of Kochi. The article could certainly use a rewrite, though. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a article about a university erasing would make no sense at all Yuckfoo 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a collge, not a university. Tintin (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of some common Hindustani words

Instead of leaping immediately to delete, I had proposed merging this article with Hindi (see the discussion about why and the results at theHindi talk page). The consensus of was that this article ought not to be merged into the Hindi article. That brings me to this nomination. This article, Origin of some common Hindustani words, is indiscriminate as it provides no basis for what words are to be included on the list and which are not. There is no similar article for any other language that I could find (other than a few pages about words English has borrowed from other languages). They might be out there, but I did not see any. There is also no article on Most common words in Hindustani for this article to support. Anything in this article is more than adequately covered in the history and vocabulary sections of the main Hindi article without any need to refer to this article. I am also concerned about this article being original research. Finally, I am wondering about proper copyright authorization because of the odd line in the article, "The derivations below are based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya, and are given here by his consent". No verification of this is provided anywhere. Agent 86 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is very useful and is in the process of expansion. It is also the Main Article for the Vocabulary Sections of the Hindustani, Hindi, and Urdu pages. Before reading this article, I had never knew the information provided here. I would highly recommend keeping this article. Thank you very much all. AbdulQadir 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is properly referenced to Dr. Yashwant Malaiya, Professor at Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO, USA. as well as other sources (see the References section). He is also a Wikipedia editor. (see his userpage: User:Malaiya. I am also working on expanding this article and adding new information to it. This is a very helpful article. Please keep it. Thank you in advance. --Zulfikkur 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Agent 86 forgot to mention was that the reason most people did not accept the merge is because they felt that it would be a good standalone article and main article for the Vocabulary section on the Hindi page. (Please see Talk:Hindi) Three out of four individuals on the talk page wanted to keep the article as a sepate page! I think this should be acknowledged. The article is also well referenced and well written. Topics covered in Origin of some common Hindustani words are not covered in history. These articles deal with totally different things. This article is also the main article for the vocabulary sections of three pages: Hindi, Hindustani, and Urdu. Also, this article is being worked on currently by myslef and other Wikipedians. I would very much appreciate if you kept this worthy article. Patel24 07:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but wants a better title. An entire Hindustani etymological dictionary, or even a fairly representative subset of such a dictionary, probably is beyond the scope of the project, and unhelpful to users on the English encyclopedia. But move this to Sources of the Hindustani lexicon or some similar name, and it probably wouldn't be here. Smerdis of Tlön 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Articles that give insight into different languarges are extremely important. Think of all the English crud on Wikipedia. Interest in other languages should be encouraged, as should the people who write them. GrapePie 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to various individual entries on Wiktionary and delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this information; Wiktionary is. User:Angr 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very valuable article. It should be kept becaus it is the main page for the Vocabulary sections of Hindustani, Urdu, and Hindi. Also Agent 86 did not mention that Professor Yashwant Malaiya (the individual whom the article is referenced to) himslef is the author of the article (see [32])He used his other professional Hindi collegiate level sites as his source for the article. I took a look at the article and it was very lucid and interesting. I am going to help by developing this article even more so. It would be a shame if this article was deleted. Please keep this article. Khuda Hafiz. Jdas07 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please re-read my nomination discussion. I did in fact note that the article claimed material was "based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya"; however, there was (and still is) no notice on the article's talk page that copyright authorization had been granted or that "Yashwant Malaiya" and Malaiya are one and the same (nor is there any indication on Malaiya's user/talk page. Of course, that means there still may be an issue with original research, but that's besides the point. ;-) Agent 86 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sat Sri Akal. It seems like the wide consensus here is to keep the article. I, myself, looked over the article and feel that it is a good and worthy one. I also agree with the other opinions of those who wish to preserve the article. In the near future, I also hope to add to the article. Dhanyavaad Singhman
• Keep The article is well worth keeping. Yeah. 70.104.119.81 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. The title is nonspecific, and should be an article on the evolution of Hindi words with some used as examples. The exmamples shouldn't define the article's name. So rename it Hindi-Urdu word etymology and discuss the relevant factors there with some examples and references. - Taxman ^Talk 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's a practical solution I could support. Agent 86 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to iTunes Music Store. Keep in mind, deleting a page when the content has been merged elsewhere is problematic with respect to the GFDL. Mangojuice^talk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-order status

Delete. Non-notable minor feature of the iTunes Music Store. Sorry but nothing worth merging. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Waaayyy too trivial for an article, probably doesn't even bear mentioning in the Itunes article. --Hetar 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retain: This article has the potential to become a more stable article than what it is today only if people contribute to it.--Toosmart215 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Toosmart above. C56C 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• merge what there is into the iTunes article (per the suggestion on the article page itself), but no prejudice whatsoever against recreation of this article if the feature generates controversy or anything by itself. Currently, all we've got is a slightly confusing description of what the term means (which might make more sense to an iTunes user, not sure) and a truckload of external links, which doesn't look like the recipe for an article. BigHaz 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Yamla 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Expand This article should either be deleted and replaced by an article, if one does not exist, about the general idea of preorder status, or expanded beyond its current scope to include the concept of preorder status. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Like pre-order perhaps. AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge most definetly with the main iTunes article. It's notible enough IMO, but only within the context of iTunes itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (After seeing the comment below, I agree, into iTunes Music Store ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
• Merge, but not into iTunes, but iTunes Music Store. Merging with the former will unbalance that article, but not with the music store article. hateless 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; content can go to iTMS. All the album images are fair-use violations as well, and either need to be removed or amended with detailed fair-use rationales. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Merge this article with the iTunes Music Store. This is a feature of the iTMS, and there's no reason for it to be in a separate article. --ShadowHalo 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this feature can be mentioned briefly in the iTunes Music Store article; it is not a notable or encyclopedic topic by itself. - David Oberst 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. It should be noted that being on IMDB is not proof of notability in the least. Wickethewok 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bachelors Cottage

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]}}

Apparently a short film, written/directed by a Harvard student, starring Harvard students, filmed at Harvard, screened at Harvard. Looks like a typical student film, not notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is listed on IMDB, but take a look at the director's credentials. Stubbleboy 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable student film. NawlinWiki 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a place to promote every single non-notable student project. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Short films are rare and this one sounds like a jewel. Online, it screens in NYC at Anthology Films. Sounds noteable to me. Jdlow 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from new user.

• Comment No, short student films are not rare in the slightest. There are tons of them. Fan-1967 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I read this advertised in NY. Smartly produced student films are welcome with me. Wasn't THX 1138 a student film once? If it's on IMDB, it should be here. NYcine 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Note: Third edit from new user.
• Delete per nom. Non-notable student film. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep It- Queer Cinema by queer filmmakers is very rare, and this is a gem of a movie with very high-quality production design, acting and directing. This is not "just another" student movie.-Darla —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.115.120.226 (talk • contribs). Note: First edit from new user.

• Delete per nom. Regarding the notability issue, I get 12 distinct Google hits for "bachelor cottage" +movie, seven of which are IMDB pages, and a couple of blog mentions and showtimes. I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the movie. While I don't believe Google should be the final arbiter of notability, at this level I think the point is symptomatic. Tychocat 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Back again for keeps. I choose to give it the benefit of the doubt. The Google and IMDB links are strong reason in favor of noteability. Why? I'm hearing a little bias in this discussion persuading the editors and possible admins from student films in general (and from Harvard in the nom), so I'm going to be bold, as Wiki asked when I joined up, and suggest we consider merit and not number of hits. Has anyone seen the film? Hasty deletes can be symptomatic as well. Jdlow 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Has anyone seen the film?" That's exactly the point: practically nobody has. The movie has no distribution, which, barring an Oscar nomination or some other claim to fame, makes it inherently non-notable. Tens of thousands of student films are made, shown to other students and maybe an indy festival or two, and then are forgotten. (BTW: Multiple comments are welcome, but Keeps or Deletes are one per person.) Fan-1967 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete I don't think IMBD requires notability, as long as it's a movie. We don't need to mirror all of their content. -Sanbeg 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no claim made in the article that the film is notable in any way. Something should be encyclopedic before an article is written. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I saw the film. After my 7/31 keep and being an active NY film buff, I wanted to see for myself what this discussion was about. Yeah, doesn't sound like the short film is too well known. But I'm here to report that the film is pretty notable. Yesterday's screening was a small but excellent sample of new filmmaking. Very impressive and probably doesn't need a self-referential claim of notability to be what it is. Glad its on IMDB. Once again, for those who haven't seen it but enjoy an ever-evolving encyclopedia: KEEP. NYcine 6:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Note: Multiple recommendation from this user struck out per WP:AFD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - it was in English in the first place, what are you talking about?. DS 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biswajit

I tagged this afd and then found him under another name on IMDB. I could be wrong but I thought this was the english version of wikipedia, but I'll let the consensus decide. Delete Stubbleboy 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Genuine article and genuine actor. Some of the films he acted such as Bees Saal Baad are culturally relevant in India. He did act in some top films with actresses such as Waheeda Rehman in Bees Saal Baad http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/07/07/stories/2003070700510100.htm and Rekha in Do Shikari wich was featured in Life magazine http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051021/asp/etc/story_5366876.asp . very strong keep for this article though there are a lot of red links for it. I will try to deal with the red links later. --Ageo020 03:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per systematic bias. He is certainly notable in a country of a billion people. Agne 04:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --PresN 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I looked at the article and found it to be in English. There is no consensus building necessary about what language w:en is to be written in, and AfD is the wrong place to suggest it in any case. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelina Galante DeRienzo

Just a random person. Can't see how it would pass any kind of notability test. SubSeven 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sturno should be bundled here. -Sanbeg 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete "0" google hits. Stubbleboy 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced piece of genealogy. Dlyons493 Talk 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, colorful but nonnotable. NawlinWiki 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was missing an AFD header. I have added one. Yamaguchi先生 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comnent This article was already deleted by AFD process (check history of this AFD) but author immediately re-created the page. What should be done in this case? SubSeven 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• It wasn't deleted through AFD process. It was userfied and deleted by Wiki alf then this debate was closed by a non-admin. A db-repost wasn't appropriate, so I decided to let this discussion run its course. Punkmorten 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, article text is non-verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete, NN bio by a relative. -Sanbeg 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - somewhat interesting but no sources, no indication of notability and the author keeps removing the AfD tag. Mark Grant 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have fixed Sturno up some, as it is a real Italian town of ancient history going back to 800 BC. So I urge you not to bundle Sturno in with the article named above. Mattisse 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I removed the notable emigrant section, since that isn't notable, and the afd tag. The rest (the new content) looks in line with similar articles currently.-Sanbeg 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Wolsey

Barely has enough notability to survive a speedy deletion, but the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO. --Hetar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable podcaster/conspiracy theorist. NawlinWiki 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems to be an important figure in the 9/11 conspiracy movement with his connection to 911truth.org - a site cited as a major source for the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. He also represents a leader in local conspirracy movements. --chemica 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hetar, please explain how "the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO". I would like to know exactly what you consider a "violation". Thank you. Visibility911 12:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotional, possible vanity; fails WP:BIO Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• comment see also Visibility 9-11 Podcast. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not meet criteria for inclusion laid out at the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Alternatively userfy to Visibility911, who is (at least in part) obviously the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention to this article and for taking it to AfD for further discussion.

Quoting from the WP:BIO, "The following types of people 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. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". However, I do believe Michael does fall into at least two of these categories and if there is a dispute about this, I ask that the following be considered along with the previous statement from the WP:BIO.

Michael has "...made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field". Despite the fact that mainstream media will not cover alternative views on 9-11, its remarkable that he has gotten so much recognition, especially in Colorado. Two cover stories have been written in local, highly visible, alternative newspapers (The Rocky Mountain Bullhorn and the Boulder Weekly) as a result of Michael's work. One featured Michael and although he was not quoted in the second one, he was interviewed and appeared in the photograph that accompanied the cover story.

Michael is also well known for his radio appearences both locally in Colorado and nationally. He has made numerous appearances on several radio stations in Colorado and guest hosted many times for the program Words of Freedom with George Flynn.

Michael was recognized nationally when he was asked to serve on the board of directors with 911truth.org, which as noted previously, is a major component in the 9-11 truth movement.

Michael's work is also featured prominently on 9-11 related websites with great regularity.

I believe, as others do, that Michael has indeed made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field".

For the reasons stated above, I also believe that Michael is also a "Person[s] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Certainly, the events of September 11th are newsworthy and it is obvious that Michael has been recognized for his work.

By the way, yes, I do know Michael and I am the one who saw your huge section on 9-11 conspiracy theories. I think Michael should be included in the section with all the other Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. If this is being viewed as a vanity article, please help me to re-write it or give me suggestions so that it conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Visibility911 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Berry

Speedy delete for non-notable bio contested by article creator. Listing in AFD. — ERcheck (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: around 16 years old, no significant notability or significant syndication. --Hetar 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (as one of the people who tagged it for speedy). Teenage musician with a myspace page. Per the talk page, he has recorded a CD, which is not the same thing as releasing a CD. Fan-1967 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable for bio. (WP:BIO) — ERcheck (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and retagged; fails to assert musical notability. NawlinWiki 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Elliott Berry has released a CD, which was sold on an indie record label throughout Tucson, Arizona. He has been featured in the Arizona Star. Both these instances make him notable -- he is recognizable to a large community. -- Cat Shelter, 7/31

• Comment Please review the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Has he "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"? Has he "been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media"? All claims for Wikipedia articles must be Verifiable from Reliable Sources. What is the indie label that released this CD? Even the smallest indie label has a webpage somewhere. How did he manage to release an album, "Ghost at the Disco", which is not mentioned anywhere on the web (totally fails Google and Yahoo search)? Fan-1967 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no WP:RS indicating that subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Elliott Berry has been written about in both The Tucson Weekly, and The Arizona Star, both of which should be available online. -- Cat Shelter

• Then find the article links, so that people can judge whether they constitute "multiple non-trivial published works". Others won't find them for you. Fan-1967 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The ideal AFD participant, a status which I aspire towards on average about once a day, will attempt that research. They may or may not succeed even when the results are out there. GRBerry 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing shows up in a google search combining the name with either paper. Fan-1967 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• They mave have been deleted, as that was about two years ago. Do you want me to send you paper copies?!? Geez. -- Cat Shelter

• Comment If there's been no coverage in the last two years, that's not a good sign. Fan-1967 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable.The Tucson Weekly, and The Arizona Star should not be considered reliable sources. --TheM62Manchester 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability to WP:MUSIC standards. GRBerry 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JT Tinney

Fails WP:BIO, speeded once, recreated but still not notable - so here we are. Rklawton 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Don't—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minno (talk • contribs).

• Delete, as speedy as consensus can be gained. BoojiBoy 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If Wikipedia had an article on every model ever, it would be ridiculous. Competing in a talent search does not make one notable. --Natalie 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PresN 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete loves spending time with her family & friends and Is engaged To Mike we shouldn't be intruding on her happy home life. Dlyons493 Talk 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ruaraidh-dobson 12:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps vote tampering is the wrong terminology since AFD is intended to be a discussion and not a vote, but please be aware that someone has been changing "Delete" into "Do not delete". [33] Yamaguchi先生 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Magmafire2374 (User:Magmafire2374)

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

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

The result was delete. As it is, there aren't any claims of notability. Wickethewok 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Reeley

NN author; 211 ghits; article is one copyvio (http://www.reeley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Andy.htm) taken from author's homepage, due to lack of other info (thus failing WP:V) -Seidenstud 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment meets CSD A8, so tagged.--Andeh 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't, because:
    1. Not all versions consist of copyright violation;
    2. The poster may well be Andy Reeley himself; and
    3. It is debatable whether the website is a commercial provider. - Mike Rosoft 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-traditional publishing with low-cost self-publishing imprint, Exposure Publishing. Dlyons493 Talk 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Team America: World Police, per discussion below. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derka

Delete. Doubtful that this term has entered the lexicon of the English language... even if it has, not encyclopedically notable, deserves no more than a footnote in Team America: World Police. bd2412 T 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. SWAdair 03:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Melchoir's suggestion, below. SWAdair 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dictdef, WP:NEO Urban Dictionary says "Stereotypical Arabic word used in lieu of actual Arabic dialogue in "Team America: World Police." Has no actual meaning in Arabic." --John Nagle 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• How about a preventative redirect to Team America: World Police, which does mention the word? Melchoir 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, that works for me as well. bd2412 T 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Team America. Agne 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect --PresN 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Team America per above. Dark Shikari 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect However its popularity is growing as my recent exposure seems to show, its also identifiable by anyone who seent he movie. However I fear what would happen to wikipedia if every term got an article or silly movie saying. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Team America per above. Patbaseball2221 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Melchior - good suggestion. Ziggurat 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Melchior -(chubbstar)^{— talk | contrib | 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

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

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

The result was no consensus. I recomment someone use {{mergeto}} to start a debate about merging, since the target of any merge seems unclear. Mangojuice^talk 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional republic

This article was originally a POV fork created by the now-blocked User:RJII. Subsequently, efforts have been made to remove the POV, but it is still a fork. All the content covered by constitutional republic is also present in the main republic article, and the definition of a constitutional republic is identical to the definition of a liberal democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to change the article into a redirect, but I have been reverted every time with no arguments given. Since there are actually only two other articles in the main namespace that link to constitutional republic, [34] a redirect isn't really necessary. Delete for being a content fork. Nikodemos 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There was a previous AfD vote that ended with the deletion of the article, but I suspect the content is different this time around. -- Nikodemos 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is. Markedly. The previously deleted article was written in the first person. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge what can be merged back into representative democracy. Now, if this were an article about some form of republic bound by a constitution but whose representatives were not democratically elected, that'd be something else. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Republic. (A representative democracy won't necessarily be a constitutional democracy, it may be a constitutional monarchy). Regardless of how many articles link here, I'd guess it would be a valid search term [35]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that there isn't much to merge - the information is already there in the other articles. -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge. C56C 07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• It might be worth asking what a non-constitutional republic is. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was wondering that myself... (by the way, what is your vote?) -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There appear to be plenty of sources on the subject of constitutional republics, several of which appear to make a distinction between that and a plain republic (and indeed to distinguish amongst other kinds of republics, too), and at least one of which is adamant that a constitutional republic and a representative democracy are two different things. Uncle G 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course. I never said the topic of the article was not notable; I'm putting it up for deletion because it's a content fork. The various types of republics and interpretations thereof are already discussed in the republic article. -- Nikodemos 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't delete articles on subjects where there are copious sources discussing the subject. Nor do we delete duplicate articles. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, especially the section on problems that do not require deletion. Then read Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, which states quite clearly that duplicate articles and sub-articles are not content forks. Moreover, I just pointed to sources that say that it isn't just the same topic by another name. That editors have edited it into a duplicate of an article on a different topic is a byproduct of their not working from sources. Always cite and use sources. Uncle G 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • While all your sources use the term "constitutional republic", none of them explains the difference between a constitutional republic and a plain republic. They seem more interested in differentiating a democracy from a republic.
      • Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that the article can ever be expanded in any meaningful way. The only thing that can really be said about a constitutional republic is that it is a republic governed according to a constitution. Then the article would have to launch into a discussion of what "republic" means, which would make it a content fork of republic. If you believe that it is possible to write even a stub about constitutional republics without duplicating material from the republic article, I invite you to do it yourself as a demonstration. -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Variant phrases, such as "constitutional republic" or "republican democracy", do not necessarily imply the need for separate articles. You mention Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, but that specifically goes on to say the duplicate articles, while not POV forks, are to be merged. And this article is not a proper "main/subarticle" setup (see my Delete comment below). - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as POV fork after checking for content present here and not present at republic, and preserve any information accrued during its sojourn under separate editors. I too was wondering what a non-constitutional republic might look like. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless the Constitution Society, the U.S. Constitution Online, the National Center for Constitutional Studies (all three of whose various articles on constitutional republics I hyperlinked to above), the CIA, the FBI, and Abraham Lincoln are all "POV warriors", the concept of a constitutional republic is not a POV fork of the concept of a republic. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources, not to delete it. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The CIA and the FBI classify countries as various kinds of republics, but neither of them explains what a "constitutional republic" actually means. Lincoln used the term "constitutional republic", but, again, did not explain how it differs from a simple "republic". Your links prove that the term "constitutional republic" is in use. They do not prove that it is used differently than "republic". -- Nikodemos 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G! GrapePie 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as creation of banned (not blocked) user. User:RJII was banned as a group account; so any content created by that account should be considered vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And deletion is not the sole way to remedy vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources. Reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug, the problems relevant here are lack of cited sources and overemphasis of minority viewpoints. The notion of a constitutional republic is far from being a minority viewpoint, given that one can find reams of mainstream sources (only a very few of which I hyperlinked to above) explaining what one is, employing the concept, and explaining that it is not the same as a plain republic. The article didn't cite sources from the start, and so editors worked from memory and inference from the existing text and came up with a clone of another, different, concept. The solution to that is to insist upon sources. There are 12 sources hyperlinked to above, using which any non-neutral or unverifiable content in the article can be addressed. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, the only difference between a constitutional republic and a plain "republic" is that a constitutional republic uses a constitution. How is it possible to write an entire article to explain that? -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination.Ultramarine 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nikodemos is wrong to say that it is the identical definition to a liberal democracy. The United Kingdom is a liberal democracy but it is not a republic. It is a monarchy. A democratic monarchy or constitutional monarchy. BillyBoom 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand There is a substantial difference between a republic and a democracy. And yes, this extends to their sub-groups - there is a difference between a "liberal democracy" and any kind of "republic". This article should be expanded to be on par with Constitutional monarchy another "split" from liberal democracy. Further, I do not see any sources in either article supporting the AfD's contention that they are the same thing.

An example of a difference would be noted early on in the liberal democracy article - liberal democracies are pluralistic and consider rights to be "created" by the government. Constitutional republics (and this isn't in its article yet only b/c it hasn't been expanded properly) avoid pluralism - the tyranny of the majority - and consider rights to be inherent to the person, regardless of what the law may say. --Tim4christ17 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• This would seem to be in disagreement with a number of existing Wikipedia articles. Liberal democracy itself says "There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada... are liberal democracies". The Freedom House survey methodology states "all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies", and my assumption is that political science textbooks would generally classify the United States (and other potential "constitutional republics") as liberal democracies. Therefore I can't see how this article could successfully be expanded in the direction you suggest. - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - while Nikodemos may not be fully correct that this is fully equivalent to "liberal democracy", certainly it would appear to be subset of it. In any case, the point would seem to be that a "constitutional republic" whatever it might be, is certainly a subset of "republic", and needs to be covered there in the first instance. Currently it isn't, which lends credence to the "fork" or "duplicate article" arguments. If that coverage at some point justifies breaking it out in "main article/sub article" format, it can be done then, but right now that certainly isn't the case. I've made further points in response to the "Uncle G" and "Tim4christ17" comments above. Finally, I note the problematic republican democracy article, which covers similar ground.- David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Later Update: I further note the constitutional democracy article, which again covers similar territory. These all seem to be attempts to exclusively define variant (or overlapping) ground. Constitutional democracy would seem to be inclusive of constitutional republic and republican democracy. I now believe the best thing would be to upgrade constitutional democracy, making the other two terms redirects. It would link from and refer to liberal democracy (and republic) as necessary. If the three terms are preferentially used in various cases for rhetorical or ideological effect, then this information can be included. Note that constitutional democracy currently has flaws of its own, which include contrasting (and implicitly opposing) to Parliamentary democracy in the intro, yet including countries (Germany, Greece, etc.) from that article its own list, but this can be fixed. Since there appears to be little or no content in constitutional republic that can't be derived from liberal democracy or republic this is still effectively a Delete vote, but if necessary the closing admin can consider it "Merge and Redirect to constitutional democracy. - David Oberst 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep perUncle G and Tim4christ17. Lectert 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - I don't see a constitution listed as a characteristic of a republic, therefore not every republic is a constitutional republic. Its the same distintion as liberal democracy and representative democracy being subtypes of democracy. Constitutional republics are a subtype of republic (which appear to come in non-constitutional and constitutional flavors as listed in the republic article). This article delves into some details on constitution and why its used as an addition to the 'standard' republic in order limit government power.

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net.kook

Non-notable neologism and a dictionary definition. Belongs on urban dictionary. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's not a neologism with mention dating at least April 1994 with Usenet net.kook of the month votes ^[1] The topic is just as encyclopedic as Internet Trolls but it does need clean up, substantially. Agne 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That article quotes the very same FAQ as this article does. (The article originally misquoted the FAQ.) If you want to argue that this concept is worthy of an article, please cite multiple sources that are not simple mirrors of the same single source. Uncle G 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. I grant that it is not a neologism but in order to be more than a dictdef, the question needs to be answered: what is a "net.kook" besides just a kook on the net? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Redirect to alt.usenet.kooks per Uncle G. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet found anything apart from the alt.usenet.kooks FAQ document that even defines what a net.kook is. Given that this concept only has verifiable meaning in the context of AUK, a redirect seems to be the most appropriate solution. Uncle G 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dict def. -- Koffieyahoo 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ http://www.nyupress.org/netwars/pages/chapter11/ch11_04.html

• Delete not technically a neologism, but a dicdef of a term used (almost) exclusively in one usenet group. Most of the article is direct cut-and-paste from the AUK FAQ, and I doubt it could ever really be expanded. Possibly some of it could be merged into Crank (person), otherwise delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• redirect per Antaeus --Samael775 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or plain redirect to either alt.usenet.kooks or even Internet troll. Redirect to AUK is probably better since no one else but them use the term... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete NN Anomo 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infosecpedia

Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking, so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it, and one of those is this wikipedia entry. It deserves a footnote at best. Being a wiki does not procure notability. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -/- Warren 06:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the precedent set by the recent deletion of many articles on wikis, such as Encyclopedia of Stupid and Kamelopedia. MER-C 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm an admin on Infosecpedia. The site is not, IMO, notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes). — Matt Crypto 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources per nom. Ziggurat 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual UFO Network

Not notable, just UFO conspiracy people. I believe the article is vanity. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Based on 75,000 GHits, apparently a notable UFO conspiracy group. Fan-1967 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very notable UFO group (albeit a little kooky). They were even featured on X-files. Season 3 episode 9 "Nisei" Agne 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)while it
• Keep. Quite possibly the most prominent group in the field of UFOlogy, which, however it may frustrate the skeptical, is still a significant cultural element. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, it is notable with people who have interest in non-reality. Keep and debunk. C56C 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• No need to be condescending. I don't buy into the UFO-conspiracy stuff myself, but I still find it fun and interesting to read about it. Zagalejo 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - evidently has some claim to be notable. Metamagician3000 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Appears to be among the most notable of the UFO conspiracy groups. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very well-known group - 246,000 Google hits for MUFON, which is the more familiar name for the organization. (225,000 for "MUFON + UFOs") Zagalejo 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known. Whatever happened to APRO and NICAP, by the way? Ah, we have articles on them... now I know. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have little time for UFO fans, but MUFON is very well established amongst them. Mark Grant 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is a valid historical group which is part of the UFO culture, and hence, is part of our culture in general. If someone sees a reference to MUFON elsewhere, and wants to look it up to find out what it is, then they should be able to come here and do so. Papaverite 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Buscaglia: The Game Attorney

Not a notable lawyer, no remarkable cases to his name. Licensed to practice up to the Supreme Court, but has not practiced there. Seems to be written as an advertisement/promotional, including resume material. Deco 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not an A7, because there is some attempt to claim notability, but it's still a resume that fails WP:BIO (per nom.) alphaChimp ^laudare 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Let attornies pay for their own advertising. GrapePie 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• No Delete - He is a very active and noteable person in the proffesional electronic interactive entertainment industry as far as advising, public speaking and commercial contributions. Thomas Buscaglia speaks at all major video game conventions. This definitely needs to be re-edited more objectively. -- phantumm ^talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I made changes - -- phantumm ^talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant advertisement. ... discospinster _talk 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Daniel

Vanity page--musician with no ablums, no influence. Whosasking 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC --PresN 06:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only relevant google hits are this article and his home page. --Joelmills 01:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dorms --Durin 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Miguel Court

Delete. Other pages focusing on dorms at La Salle University have repeatedly been listed as non-notable and have been deleted. This article should be no different. Pacdude 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zazu Networks

Non notable company in the field of WiFi. No mention of this company in Indian or American media. most of the article has been copied from the company website. http://www.zazunetworks.com/aboutus.htm Ageo020 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There is nothing on the website to indicate size of company (sales, number of employees, etc...). This does not appear to meet WP:CORP. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. --Wafulz 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Yanksox as nonsense. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katia

Article with no real information on an event that may not happen at all. Jake52 My talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, so tagged (as patent nonsense); for heaven's sake, a future hurricane (2011, here) is actually listed as an example in WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 03:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kapoutland Pro Wrestling

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]}}