Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts Wikipedia:WikiProject reform Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was Delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Infinite LP

Contested prod, sorta. It was recreated 2 hours after it was deleted through a prod. It was tagged a few hours later with a speedy tag but not a proper speedy criteria. This is a procedural nomination to reach consensus on the article. Metros232 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete There are no sources posted, not even rumours of there being an album with this name. --Zimbabweed 00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. With no sources, this is all just speculation. Green451 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. User 64.219.78.237 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) inserted link to this into Eminem and other articles, where it was removed quickly and without comment. Tubezone 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. FL a RN (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete crystal ball SkierRMH,08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hello32020 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Mailer Diablo. --SonicChao ^talk 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete entirely speculative, unsourced. There being no deadline and no need to scopp the music press, we can do without this for now thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —The Great Llama^moo? 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I gave a procedural nomination, no explanation for why it should be deleted. I don't think my reason should be "per nom"ed. Metros232 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- dhp1080 ^(u·t·c) 22:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I gave a procedural nomination, no explanation for why it should be deleted. I don't think my reason should be "per nom"ed. Metros232 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per Mailer Diablo. FireSpike Editor Review! 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and lacks any form of verifiable source. Gwernol 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete speculation. Rever e ndG 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Beyond the fact that it is unsourced and not verifiable, it's just not close enought to have an article. 2Pac 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to Patriarchy. Proto::type 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarchal society

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nothing factual here is not said already (and better) in patriarchy; the rest is ranting. Crystallina 00:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Patriarchy, incoherent unsourced rant OR, but a legitimate redirect. ColourBurst 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as stated above. Basically a rant, or at best an essay. Green451 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect definately a rant... and other above. Cbrown1023 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Stebbins 01:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per everything above. Sr13 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect is definately in order. Dump all of the POV text, and set up a redirect. --Jayron 32 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and Redirect per nom. SkierRMH,09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to myth. Or just delete. The Crying Orc 11:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per everybody ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, I've boldly redirected the page as per above consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So we can close this debate, then, if no objections are made within the next, let's say, two hours? MER-C 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Notability not even remotely asserted (A7), little context (A1). Blatant WP:COI.--Hús ö nd 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert z. kaplan

Non-notable lawyer. Only 10 ghits. D e nni ^talk 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and possibly per ~~WP:VAIN~~ WP:COI, as the article was the user's first edit. Green451 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom (WP:BIO) and possible WP:COI. Cbrown1023 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely a vanity page. Stebbins 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aric Van Halen

Nom - No personal achievements; notable only by birth Rklawton 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN and CSD A7. No reliable sources are provided, and being the son of someone famous does not necessarily make someone notable. Green451 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Whether or not relations to famous people make you notable, this guy has done nothing worth writing an article about. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
speedy delete A7, no assertions of notability... --Jayron 32 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as tagged and per Green451. Sr13 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd originally tagged it as speedy, but the author removed the tag. Rklawton 05:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merged to The Powerpuff Girls characters. MER-C 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guest Enemies in the Powerpuff Girls

Delete. Already mentioned in another article. Marcus 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Although I am not fond of the Powerpuff Girls myself, many people are. Just add a main article reference and it's all set. FL a RN (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Non-notable fancruft. I stripped the article down due to lack of sources. The article didn't assert notability before and now also has no content. CSD A3 (and A7 in spirit). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless fanlistcruft OR magnet. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment This AfD is moot because the page has been turned into a redirect to The Powerpuff Girls characters. It was created as a bad cut-and-paste that never should have happened. This AfD never should have happened. CovenantD 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing I can say per CovenantD. Sr13 04:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close as resolved The issues appear to have been resolved by a redirect. --Jayron 32 04:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indie role-playing game (computer and video games)

Article about the homebrew RPG making scene. No reliable sources to verify anything from the article, and redundant in light of the articles we have on computer role-playing games and indie games. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Green451 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sr13 04:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... SkierRMH,09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: if the creator is having a genuine go at contributing, please let them know about naming conventions if this gets deleted. Bracketed modifiers are only needed of there's more things with the same name. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There *is* more than one thing with the same name. Indie role-playing game. -- Solberg 12:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Delete unless ~~sauce~~ sources are provided. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources. Hello32020 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. FireSpike Editor Review! 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per consensus. Rever e ndG 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable original research. The Kinslayer 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was El Keepo Gigante - crz crztalk 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of musical works in unusual time signatures

This is an unmaintainable list, that I don't think will ever be complete. It is 89KB and there is no good way to make it complete. Please delete. Georgia guy 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, who defines "unusual"? I think 6/8 is unusual, myself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is like trying to make a list of all paperback books. Stebbins 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OMFG. It's huge and probably took a lot of work... but delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment and Delete. Wow, all these edit conflicts! This nomination was not put up correctly, so I fixed it. Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscrimanate collection of information. Green451 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This list is really useful. Since it's quite long, I suggest breaking it into smaller articles based on the metre of each category. - Richardcavell 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- It may be useful, but it's subjective what constitutes an unusual time signature, so how do you suggest avoiding POV violations? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - comment; reading the Time signature article it seems to indicate that an unusual time signature wouldn't be subjective at all. wtfunkymonkey 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. shotwell 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Richardcavell. Should be broken up into smaller articles. "Unusual time signature" is a common Western designation for meters not divisible by 2 or 3; the list should be confined to Western music, in the most broadly defined terms (so, for instance, rock music from anywhere in the world would apply, but recordings of West African drumming would not). Chubbles1212 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment and Keep. The lead of the article says "examples of musical compositions." Rather than try to be exhaustive, this list should include only a selection of notable songs. That might be something useful and worth keeping. Stebbins 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep as something useful in a format that I don't believe is available anywhere else. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article, it is amazing. It actually has helped me sometimes. that Sufjan Stevens with his wacky time signatures. Seriously though, I actually looked for a list like this. I googled "list of ridiculously bizarre time signatures", and found this page. Actually this is one of my favorite wikipedia pages. Most articles are never going to be complete, theres always more stuff to learn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colonelsandersfc (talk • contribs).
Delete in its current form it is unmaintainable. Remember, Telephone Directories are VERY useful, and utility is NOT a criteria for an article at wikipedia. I would have no problem if this article reappeared as individual lists for specific smaller articles, for each specific time signature as a list, which would each be more useful and more manageable. --Jayron 32 04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Shotwell. Sr13 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Reluctantly, I can't see this being anything other than a delete in its current form, which is a shame because I'll admit it is both useful and interesting. A possible compromise might be to split it into separate articles for individual time signatures: though "unusual" may be a POV term, articles such as List of musical works in 5/4 or 5/8 time might at least save some of this in usable, non-POV form, so I'd prefer splitting it into these if possible, though that still may fall foul of deletionist views. FWIW, in its current form it could also get extremely long - I keep a similar list offline myself, and there is very little cvorrelation between the two in terms of what tracks are listed. From this, I suspect that the current list could grow to several times its current size. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (now playing, Pete Shelley, "I generate a feeling" - 13/8 time)
Keep BlueLotas 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I stressed over this decision, but I think that although the term "unusual" sounds very POV it is still a useful list. I think it could be of use to people interested in the subject, and unlikely to be found anywhere outside wikipedia in this form (unlike information on schools or a phone book for instance). I suggest adding the qualification that to be included in the list the artist or song must have or be worthy of a seperate wikipedia article. Thus all notability criteria would then be followed. Viridae ^Talk 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Chubbles' comments above. Its current large state doesn't mean it can't be broken into smaller pieces (per time signature). Therefore the list can be fixed so it's no longer unmaintainable without deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd delete - at 89 KB and based on the ambiguity of the criteria for inclusion - anything other than 4/4 and 2/2 could be on it. As Mgm said, I'd also like to see it broken up by time signature - just because it has crappy formatting doesn't mean it's beyond hope. ST47Talk 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and split into separate articles, one for each timing. That addresses the concern about "unusual" being arbitrary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Oh no, not again!" What is unusual? Who defines what is unusual with respect to a particular genre? Is there systemic bias in the genres represented? Or the dates? Look how over-represented the last decade is within the list. Do we have reliable sources for the time signatures of the more modern pieces, which are typically not published as sheet music? Far More Blue and Far More Drums are the same piece, essentially, why two entries? What about movements within other works, such as In Freezing Winter Night from Britten's Ceremony of Carols? Is there an objective definition of what constitutes an unusual time signature in the context of a given genre, or is this just an end-run around the removal of articles like the list of songs in triple metre? And as Newyorkbrad says, "a format that I don't believe is available anywhere else" - which is what we call original research. WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL do not, I'm afraid, trump policy. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Split into separate articles as per Samsara. -Toptomcat 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be an "interesting" choice, since we already deleted articles for "list of songs in foo metre" due to the fact that the selection of an individual metre is arbitrary, the lists are potentially vast, and almost every inclusion from the last couple of decades is straight OR since they are not published in sheet music. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and split: The designation "unusual" is sound enough; it's a better title than "list of pieces in metres that are not 2/4 3/4 or 4/4" or whatever. There are problems with this article (the size can be addressed by splitting any sections that are large) such as its attractiveness as a spam target, but I don't see why it should be deleted. The information is probably useful to some people. - Rainwarrior 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What will we use for sources for the majority of entries, those after about 1990 which aree not published on sheet music? Guy (Help!) 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would recordings themselves not be valid sources? - Rainwarrior 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: What is unusual? How can this be verified? Is this just original research? How can this ever be completed, I'm assuming there are thousands of pieces in a certain time signature. --aviper2k7 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you check the sourcing, you'll see how it can be verified, which will confirm that it's not original research (not all of it anyhow, so it's not AfD's business). WilyD 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with particularly long titles <-- Worth looking at. Unfortunately, this list was deleted some months later, and I can't find any further debate about it. A pity, since I used that list several times for information... The parallel here is that the longtitle list consisted of "original research" in that the authors had to count the number of words in the song titles rather than use verified sources stating that the titles were long. Here, the authors are counting the number of beats in a measure rather than finding sources that state that the song is in an irregular meter. Surely this isn't reasonably considered original research? Chubbles1212 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Many contemporary composers and song writers do not publish their sheet music. Unless these artists explicitly tell what their time signatures were in some other published context, it is original research to attempt to deduce the time signatures they used. --Iamunknown 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment All it is in terms of reaserch is citing a primary rather than a secondary source- a song, rather than someone talking about a song. This acceptable in the vast majority of reaserch methodologies- why Wikipedia seems so resistant to it is something that has long puzzled me. -Toptomcat 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, though it should probably be split to keep it from being overlong. It contains useful information, is verifiable with a little trouble, will never be complete but that's the way it is with some lists. (Shouldn't the title be "asymmetric time signatures" rather than the somewhat POV "unusual"?) Antandrus (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Keep - at least one entry is well sourced - pruning of unsourced entries of the list is not a concern for AfD. This article is incomplete, and likely to remain so is a terrible criterion for deletion. It'd result in the deletion of most articles on wikipedia. Nor is maintaining this article is a lot of work a good argument. The article is being maintained - if someone wants to put in the time and effort to create a good article, it's hardly the wiki spirit to say "You're working too hard - stop building such a good encyclopaedia". In the end, the article is sourced and it is encyclopaedic. It fits well with WP:LISTS. It's in good shape. There's absolutely zero reason to delete it. WilyD 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and split. Editors should then cull unsourced and non-notable works. Judging from Time signature, this sort of list probably does have a place in an encyclopedia if cleaned up, particularly as relating to concert music. There are WP:OR problems with the mass of unsourced modern entries, but as pointed out, deleting these is an editorial matter. Sandstein 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Very interesting and useful page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18 hours (talk • contribs).
Keep It seems from Time signature that there is an accepted non-original-research definition of "unusual time signature". The concerns about the length of the list can be dealt with by pruning it down to notable works only (i.e. works with their own article). Demiurge 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. "Unusual" can certainly be defined in relation to a certain genre of music. I'm glad that this nomination has alerted me to the existence of this article, as I would have otherwise created it myself. —Psychonaut 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Throatybeard 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) This page is a tremendous resource. Reformat it as necessary, but definitely keep all this information on Wiki.
Delete unusual is a subjective term. Rever e ndG 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep If unusual is the problem, then use the word uncommon instead.
Keep, but as-is this is a mess. Should be pruned back significantly to include only those works that are inherently notable in themselves, i.e. where multiple independent third-party articles / reviews have been written about the song or composition itself. Fairsing 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The list is a useful resource. Change unusual to uncommon and break it into smaller entries if necessary, but the content should remain. Character 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Useful, totally verifiable (you don't need sheet music to be able to tell if a song is in 4/4 time or not!). Would prefer to see it broken down into specific meters, because of the POV connotations of "unusual." | Mr. Darcy talk 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The purpose of this list would be better would be better served with an article explaining how different time signatures become standardized in different areas and times and why some composers chose to use time signatures out of the norm. Bjart 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs work but not unfixable. BotleySmith 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Although hard to maintain and include each song with an unusual time signature, I ended up stumbling on this page trying to find out what time signature a song was in, so it was at least beneficial to me. kirkio 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but split, leaving a main page referring to all the sub-pages. Narssarssuaq 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm a musician who finds uncommon time signatures very interesting and this list has been extremely helpful to me. I think the idea of breaking it up into smaller articles is a good idea. Junta889 06:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep; I found it helpful, but just considering the page length, split if necessary. (My first AfD vote... and it's positive! Yay! :-D) --3M163//Complete Geek 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's wonderful Iliff 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Very helpful, and obviously a massive amount of time and effort was put into this.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generalized Pitchers Rating

Seems to have been made up one day. Zero non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as made up or original research. SliceNYC 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Fantasy leagues are very popular, if this was in use, we'd see it. "GPR rating" apparently is a hockey term. Tubezone 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete on NFT or NOR. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - possible hoax - I looked for a rationale to redirect to sabermetrics or fantasy baseball, but (i) zero Google hits is a bit low, (ii) the actual formula (in an earlier version of the article) makes little sense, and (iii) the page creator has no edits other than this one page, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - probable hoax. SkierRMH,09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above delete votes. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 09:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletion solves all problems - no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Original research or hoax. Hello32020 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR. Rever e ndG 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete for all the above reasons. I love obscure baseball stats, and this isn't one I can reference. If the author had pointed us to references, it might be a different story. Kathy A. 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No need to salt yet, unless recreation becomes an issue. --Core desat 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nabs

Notability of this product is not asserted. Verifiability problems due to age. Possible conflict of interest, see User talk:MER-C#Nabs Snack Crackers. Contested prod. MER-C 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the message on my talk page:

“

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

Please do not delete the article "Nabs" (Snack Cracker) co-authored by myself. Since Aug of 2006 this article has been created for the sole purpose of defining this term, with sources cited directly from Nabisco & Lance Inc. No other such article exists anywhere that can be found on the world wide web.

Since mid-Oct 2006 an Indian firm referred to as "NABS INc.", rather than creating their own article in Wikipedia, decided to vandalize this one for the sole purpose of marketing their company, which already has its own website (http://www.nabs.com). Responsible contributors who performed these unauthorized and malicious modifications were "Ekeeran", "Ashwathaman", "125.22.158.109", & "59.144.22.194".

Thanks and best regards.

Ms. Christina Fellows, Executive Representative Kraft Foods, ~~TLXEA_13861319~~N

”

MER-C 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. wtfunkymonkey 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary as it's basically a dicdef: "nabs, slang for snack crackers, from Nabs brand crackers formerly made by Nabisco". Better keep an eye on the page in case the Indians show up again. --Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki, lock article page to prevent recreation from either Kraft's marketing lackeys or "the Indians." Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Salt No evidence of notability, unverified/urban dic def. Corporate cronies must be made to understand that Wikipedia is not an avenue for advertising or settling trademark disputes. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
delete Ms Fellows makes the BEST case for deletion I have ever read, even if that was not her intention. Creating an article to simply to invent a term??? Sounds like a direct violation of WP:NOR. Ms. Fellows should be directed there to understand how Wikipedia works before creating further such articles. --Jayron32 04:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with your general sentiment, but it should be noted that this term has existed for far longer than the article, and most likely longer than Ms. Fellows. ScottW 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
delete - Not important subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmAndLeg (talk • contribs).
delete, salt and kick 'em in the nads SkierRMH,09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki and Delete per above. Viridae ^Talk 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per the message on the talk page, which I agree makes a good case for deletion. Morwen - Talk 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - COI and VAIN, more of a definition ST47Talk 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia administrators, please delete this thing. Seraphimblade 13:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Per sheer stupidity and "Ecternal links" --aviper2k7 19:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I can actually see a decent article on this topic, but it's hard to advocate keeping this one. The subject is fairly notable, being one of those brand names that develop into a generic name. Throughout the Southern US, this is an easily recognizable term that, while it's a step below in outside recognition, it's a step above the moon-pie in commonality. It would be nice if there were a good place to redirect this for now, but I can't really think of where. Maybe Cracker (food), but that still doesn't seem quite right. ScottW 21:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

reply I would have no problem with a redirect to the cracker article, since this is just a subset of the cracker concept. Perhaps a 1-sentance mention in that article, if we can get a third party verification of this word as real. --Jayron 32 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Ms. Fellows should be arranging to have this page created on the Kraft Foods homepage, not here on Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 23:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and tell the Kraft people to read WP:NOR if they wish to make further contributions (as suggested by Jayron). --Matthew Humphreys 11:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ms. Fellows seems to be a hoax. My guess is that if Kraft Foods wanted to act on any Wikipedia page, they'd go thru an Office Action. --RoninBK_ETC 10:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CadStd

No assertion of notability. Google brings up mostly free download sites. Contested prod. MER-C 01:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability = CSD A7.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Technicalities, technicalities. Delete per failing WP:SOFTWARE. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD A7 only applies for people, bands, groups, clubs, websites and companies. MER-C 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but is there a reason for the list being limited to these items? It seems arbitrarily restrictive. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as WP:SOFTWARE SkierRMH,09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't find anything about this anywhere ST47Talk 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete I added references to two magazine articles (there are more elsewhere). This should fullfill the notability requirements. --ArcticTern 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Just the fact that something got reviewed in amagazine does not necessarily make it notable. The article still reads too much like an ad. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rever e ndG 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aabcomp

Self-promotion, fails WP:CORP RichMac (Talk) 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam, Aabcomp (talk • contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rovism

Page does not cite sources, or assert the notability of the topic. The little content is not linked, and does not mention the topic itself. WP:NFT --Ybbor^T 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nn neologism, 655 ghits. MER-C 03:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - neologism, and everyone knows the term refers to the new cult that venerates Karl Rove as the new Buddah. SkierRMH,09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletism per nom. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Twanswiki to wikiquote and make Rovism a redirect to Karl Rove. In 10 years people will come across the term and not be able to make the connection without the help of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — I don't think this is even notable enough to be on WikiQuote, but a couple of supposed quotes are not enough for a new article. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete lacks adequate verification.-- danntm ^T _C 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. enochlau (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jikoshia

Article makes no assertion of notablility for the comic and fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. Also nominating the author's page (Emily R. Gillis) as it would fail WP:BIO if this comic is deleted. Note that the author's page had an AFD a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily R. Gillis). Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete on both. No assertion of notability = CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both fails WP:WEB, no alexa ranking. I wouldn't speedy it though. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 03:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete both - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe The Circle

Article asserts no notability of the comic. Contested prod. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, copyvio for intro paragraph for no apparent reason... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability = CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little new to this, so pardon me if this a frequently asked question. When I read the initial proposed deletion item and followed links about notability, I started the task of collecting some of the other things written about the strip, appearances in magazine and other media, etc. From the wording here though, and one of the comments below, I get the impression that it is desirable that the article actually explicitly says something like, "The comic is notable because..." I haven't noticed that in other articles, and if we routinely write that way, it will sounds stilted and formulaic to readers. That said, if phrasing it that way is desirable we should change it. As to whether it actually *is* notable, I guess that's still to be determined. :-) Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - There is no requirement for the phrasing "The comic is notable because..." Notability assertions take various forms. If this comic was featured in the New York Times, for example, we might have the article say "Joe the Circle was presented in a New York Times feature on popular web comics." This would be sufficient to qualify as an assertion of notability. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely claiming to be notable for its print history going back over 15 years. Not explicitly saying "notable because" in the article is no good reason to delete, otherwise we're implicitly encouraging everyone to boilerplate their articles, which is a very bad thing. Unfocused 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure where you got 15 years from - the article states it was started in June 1997. Viridae^Talk 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The print version of the comic does go back 16-17 years. (I've been unable to find out exactly.) The origins of the strip were as a print comic in the late eighties and early nineties. The article mentions this. The start date I entered was for its launch as an online comic. Also, I've moved that back to 1995 today to the initial launch of the online comic by SuperNova. The earliest date I could confirm otherwise was the registration of the domain name which was in 1997. Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Something someone did at college and is now doing on the internet is not what I understand a print history going back over 15 years to mean. No assertion of notability at all. An unsourced quote from the comic's creator has my COI senses tingling. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can diminish your tingle. This is my first wikipedia project. It's something I'm interested in and think has a place here, but seems to be a better place to work out this sort of newbieness than trying to edit the entry on environmentalism or something. ;-) If you look at the source of the article, you'll see I included a source for that quote, but apparently wasn't using the rquote template correctly for it to display. I'm attempting to correct this now. Hmmm... I've done so, but put a large external URL in the article. I'll do that rather than leave it unsourced, but perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate way? Yoak 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom... nn, etc. SkierRMH,09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I've fixed the reference. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a fan of the comic, but it's not at all notable to my knowledge. Stebbins 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stebbins. Rever e ndG 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:COI and {{contradict}}. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no significance according to verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niccolò Casini

Unknown third-choice goalkeeper for Livorno, who never made a single appearance at the professional level, but just in Serie D and Eccellenza, both amateur leagues. [1] Angelo 03:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and WP:BIO. Qwghlm 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- On second thoughts weak keep - Livorno are a Serie A side and competing in this season's UEFA Cup so I think they are a notable enough side to be covered by WP:BIO's clause that states: "first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." Qwghlm 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... would expect at least one prof. game as the absolute lowest bar (and even then...) SkierRMH,09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO-bit cited by Qwghlm. People who are part of a notable team should be covered whether they appeared or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Livorno is A series club. Notable. Tulkolahten 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Third choice keeper, no first team appearances. Catchpole 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Qwghlm's point on notable team. Camw 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Qwghlm. Johnn 7 07:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete He's a third-choice. Rever e ndG 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Livorno is fourth in Serie A and competes in the UEFA Cup, so Casini is notable despite being a third choice. Besides a third choice keeper may quickly become the only choice, as happened to Chelsea's Hilario. – Luxic 23:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gadnis

Thoroughly non-notable, and no sources at all. Contested speedy. Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:BIO. Professor test doesn't even apply here. Crystallina 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, a rare case where I am tempted to go speedy. Stammer 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom... SkierRMH,09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, most of the text cite his students as a source. And the only website used is 'RateMyTeacher' which also has students at the base of its review. This has no reliable sources at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this deletion! Hey, I cited RateMyWikipedians as a source! - 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Fails WP:BIO - a non-notable high school teacher. I'm surprised it wasn't speedy deleted. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Good god, delete this vanity piece. Rever e ndG 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, one of my students did this, delete as soon as you can - Adam Gadnis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.7.151 (talk • contribs) .
Delete jeez. end this already. Yankee Rajput 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Kimchi.sg 11:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell from here

Looks like a non-notable comic strip although I don't have local knowledge. At any rate, I could't find any external coverage. Crystallina 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Can't find any related hits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem to establish notability, though as with the nominator, I have no WP:LOCAL knowledge. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete due to verifiability problems. MER-C 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Ultra-Loser. Let me see...there are SIX templates on the article!!! This is a no-brainer unless someone completely rewrites this aricle (which is useless anyway because it fails notability guidelines). Sr13
Speedy delete - the last line of the article gives the best reasons for this! SkierRMH,09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, this isn't the place to discuss moving a page. By the way, this is just a copy of the info already at DIMHRS, so I'll redirect it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DIHMRS

mispelling of topic name (should be DIMHRS) Elcapo 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to proper spelling. Come on. Don't let this nomination go on for five days, please. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prelude to Darkness

Non-notable indie video game. No reviews or other coverage of the game by reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone produces a reliable source, in which case we'll see. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete smells like a hoax as well; couldn't find a valid refernce for the supposed pubisher. SkierRMH,09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Careful! I've found a reference that there's more companies with that name. Don't get them confused. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I was the one who made the page and as I noted during the creation, it's possible that this game is not notable enough for inclusion and could be deleted. I wouldn't be too disappointed, though I lean towards keeping the page (if I didn't, why would I bother making it in the first place). However, I think some of the reasoning to delete it is suspect. First and most obviously, this is not a hoax. With all due respect, anyone who does even a 5-second competent search on google or bothers clicking the reference link can go to the official site, where there are screenshots and a download to the game (it's freeware since some time ago, as noted in the introduction) can see that. In any case, which of the following aren't reliable sources? There are probably more than this, but this is what a quick search reveals:

It's also available at many major sites (both game and general) for download (fileshack, download.com, gamershell, etc), something it wouldn't be if it was totally unknown:

-- Solberg 12:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Delete. NN. WMMartin 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete this version. There really isn't anything to merge, but I suspect a case could be made for an article which included pictures, citations to local news stories, and an outline of the development of the new facility. The current article does not meet that description. Mackensen (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colchester Bus Station

Contested ProD. Wikipedia is not: a travel guide, an indiscrimate collection of information. No assertion of notability. Original research. A great many places have bus stations, why would each one deserve an article? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a bus timetable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Bwithh 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - I know bus stops aren't really notable, but it seems the main bus station in a city the size of Colchester (population 104,390) is. --Oakshade 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Vote chaged to Merge per comments below, especially Tubezone. Transporation hubs I think are still notable, but not automatically. --Oakshade 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why? -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - A city transporation hub, similar to a city's primary airport or train station. --Oakshade 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment OK, yes, Heathrow Airport and Roma Termini station are of course notable. This is just a bus stance (a temporary structure according to the article) in a town. It has no architectural, historical or cultural significance whatsoever. It's just a bus station [2]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Oh and the bus station is already covered here in the main article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Heathrow? The busiest international airport in the world? Comparisons more appropriate would be Providence (Amtrak station), Ottawa Bus Central Station and Meadows Field Airport (Bakersfield, California). --Oakshade 05:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Yes, three more good examples of notable transport hubs. I'm not really seeing your point. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - That I think it's a notable transporation hub, per my fist comment. I'll add Colchester railway station to the comparison list --Oakshade 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Actually, I'm seeing us edging pretty close to WP:POINT here. I think it's best to just leave this alone lest it descend into a debate on inclusionism for varying sizes of transport hubs. I'm standing firmly by my nomination. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Good idea. We'll agree to disagree. --Oakshade 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I am completely convinced that this article should be deleted per IslaySolomon. Sr13 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and this article looks like original research ("locally referred to as just 'the bus station'", "about three minutes walk from the town centre", etc.). Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedent and as buscruft (I'm a a bit of a busnut myself). This isn't even really an intercity station, local bus stations are not notable. This is basically just a downtown city/suburban bus stop, it hosts a whopping total of 4 National Express services. A pointer to web info on local Colchester transit can be included in the main Colchester article. AFAIK, damn near every bus line in the UK has a web page where routes, maps and timetables can be seen or downloaded, zero need to duplicate in WP. Precedent is that only notable intercity bus stations such as the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Victoria Coach Station should be included. Tubezone 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, If it's already mentioned in Colchester as stated above, I suggest a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk)
Merge' With all due respect to anyone who lives in Colchester, but is this station really that notable? Like others before me, I suggest that we merge tha article. --S kully Collins ^Edits 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Colchester, as suggested by the ideal course of article development under WP:LOCAL, failing that, Delete outright.-- danntm ^T _C 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Colchester. - FireSpike Editor Review! 23:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Mgm, who raises a very cogent argument (and danntm, who points to the appropriate guideline supporting that argument), or Delete per nom. Xtifr _tälk 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tracie Andrews, which seems to have been done already. Sandstein 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Harvey

No assertion of notability in the article. I see no encyclopedic value. Unfortuantely, crime is not notable. Wikipedia is not a crime magazine. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Tracie Andrews or vice versa, whatever works best. Multiple BBC coverage - w/o having to examine any other source - was evidently a highly visible murder in the UK. Don't forget to control for "oswald" when googling. - crz crztalk 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Tracie Andrews. Only one article needed, at it would make more sense to point to her than vice-versa. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I recommend that Tracie Andrews be included in this nomination for deletion- the articles are a criminal/victim pairing for the same incident Bwithh 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete (also delete Tracie Andrews if nominator choses to include that article.) Unencyclopedic - ordinary murder case which received sensationalistic media coverage (story seems to have had staying power for initial "road rage" angle and then the fiancee murderess angle). No apparent broader social/cultural/political impact. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a memorial. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and subsequent deletion review for example of sensationalist media coverage of possible murder of recently wed husband being judged unencyclopedic (with closing subsequently endorsed at deletion). Bwithh 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, WP:NBD - crz crztalk 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge; when a crime gets enough media coverage, it's notable.--Prosfilaes 09:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bwithh. The subject itself is non-notable except for sensationalistic media coverage. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Tracie Andrews - significant case at the time, still referred to in local press. Note that the murder pre-dates the BBC News Online archive. Eludium-q36 13:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
keep or merge into T.A. many crimes are notable, and many recent murder cases will fall into the notable category. People want to know about them and we shouldgive a starting point. DGG 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000-2001 Demos

NN demos by semi-notable band. Merge unwarranted. - crz crztalk 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. How did you determine what it was about? I have no idea. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
"Both recording sessions were done for a whopping $550 total" - delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmAndLeg (talk • contribs) .
Comment Can you believe a non-involved user actually deprodded this? There's inclusionism, but this is way too far... - crz crztalk 06:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can. If I remember correctly, there's a school of thought that any music by a notable band is automatically notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sr13 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete passes the Glorified garage band gone amok] test. SkierRMH,09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per SkierRMH. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - FireSpike Editor Review! 23:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete poorly written article, which doesn't even explain what it is about. After some independant research (by doing a search on the hard-to-read name on the picture provided), the article appears to be referring to some band called Byzantine, and by logical deduction, I was able to determine that this is a demo album by that band. A lot of work just to determine what an article is about! And in the end, it hardly seems worth it. Unless every second-rate metal band's demo album is considered notable by Wikipedia standards, I'd say give this garbage a kiss goodbye. Wavy G 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reason to redirect, as it's not likely someone would search for this. --Core desat 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neko the Kitty

Article asserts no notability of the comic, which fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No sign of notability. Also, it's not that good, which doesn't matter, except that endeavors which aren't good tend also to not be notable. I would not speedy this - the article itself is not that bad, give the guy his day in court, also this Neko forum has 500 topics, so somebody is reading it, I guess. Herostratus 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Kill off and redirect to Neko Case, I mean Maneki Neko. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ delete per MER-C -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

removes speedy, I assumed the article was new. my bad. -- lucasbfr ^talk 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Cute, but ~~not funny~~ not notable. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why a speedy delete? After nearly 2 years in the 'pedia? It seems objective, doesn't seem to be merely promotional. Since the WP is not a bureaucracy, I think we need more than just citing WP:WEB to explain why this page has to go. Someone enlighten me? ^~DBS ^Talk/_Contribs 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article does not mention any notability that might proove it meets either of the 3 criterias listed on WP:WEB. I have not seen much webcomics passing an AfD to be honest. -- lucasbfr ^talk 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I perceive a direct conflict from the claims that it's "not notable" (and request for removal) and the template on Neko's talk page stating, This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. (emphasis added) On the sole basis of these two conflicting goals, I'd say keep it. ^~DBS ^Talk/_Contribs 06:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no significance according to verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Note that WikiProject Webcomics is meant to include every webcomic article, and therefore it includes even those that ought to be deleted. It is not a stamp of quality or importance. Many if not most deleted webcomics articles have been part of our project. -- Dragonfiend 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz Age Chronicles

Article claims this comic has been "around" for 20 years or so, but has a surprisingly small web presence for such an old comic. If this is false, the comic fails WP:WEB as it makes no other assertions to notability beyond age. Contested prod. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article and Website both fail to assert notability. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The author of the comic appears notable, which satisfies WP:WEB. Since the article Wikilinks him, this would be it's claim to notability. At the least, merge it with the author's page. Xuanwu 10:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I moved most of the info to Ted Slampyak, which at least has a few sources which make it appear nontrivial (Ignatz Award,Addy Award, Little Orpahn Annie). Perhaps a redirect is in order. -- Dragonfiend 20:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure if WP:WEB is the only criteria to apply to this comic. According to the article, it began as a printed work in 1989. It's only been recently that's been put on the web. I think the general rule is that a comic that starts in print and then moves onto the web is not technically a webcomic (similar to Garfield or Dilbert). Were the publishers of Jazz Age notable? Can anyone find any reviews of the comic from when it was published? Xuanwu 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep article was a lot more expansive before the copyrighted information was removed. All this article needs is some attention. --evrik ^(talk) 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep evrik's comments make a lot of sense. Sounds like a legit comic by a legit artist, so at the very least folks should look at whether content could be added to this entry to make it useful. I'm sure that Wikipedia has retained articles on far more trivial sub-subjects. lblanchard
Delete. Doesn't look notable to me. WMMartin 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - where's the notability? Just because we've retained other articles,that doesn't give this one license to remain without proper sourcing and proof of notability. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I think I can summarize the argument to keep with three main points. First, Jazz Age Chronicles was published by a notable comic book publisher, Caliber Comics (I looked them up - now I remember where I heard that name before). Second, the author of the comic is notable. Third, the webcomic version of Jazz Age Chronicles is currently being released by Graphic Smash.

If only the third point was true, the subject might not be notable enough to warrant inclusion (I'm not going to argue that every comic on Graphic Smash is notable because it's on Graphic Smash). However, the original Jazz Age Chronicles was released through a publishing house that was "well known and independent of the creators," WP:WEB requirement #3 (Caliber was well known in the early 90's). This, to me, indicates that not only was Jazz Age Chronicles notable in the early 90's, but that it has remained so today, as proven by Graphic Smash's willingness to include this comic in their commericial enterprises. Slampyak's own personal notability furthers adds to the value of keeping this article.

Lastly, the article passes the "perfect article" test. Given enough time, Jazz Age's publication history, offline reviews from the early 90's, and other NPOV facts could be compiled to make this a well-referenced article. It's only because of the comic's age and the current defunct status of its major publisher that makes it difficult to find this material. But it's not impossible. We have articles on Caliber's other major series, such as A.K.A. Goldfish and Deadworld. This one is no different. Xuanwu 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. "Keep" with no coherent rationale is a vote, but AFD is not a vote, civility notwithstanding. - crz crztalk 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS-MA2 Moebius

The curftiest of fancrufts. Entirely original research. Written as "in universe". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, it does "cite" some fan sites, but I still believe that there's OR going on there. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep You believe that there's OR here? I just believe that OR is minor part to whole article and could be fix, not delete it. L-Zwei 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft, portrays fiction as fact ST47Talk 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpins 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: the topic itself is not original research, which means that original research is not grounds for deletion of the article. Be bold! Delete the original research, not the entire article. An "in-universe perspective" is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Nobody here has advocated any valid argument for deletion, so I have voted keep by default. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment A lack of verifiability, a lack of notability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information are all perfectly valid reasons for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment For verifiability, the article does cited its source. For not an indiscriminate collection of information, the article isn't FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, textbook nor plot summary. Finally, for notability, while being "grunt"-type machine, it's one that cause whole conflict in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and spawn various variations, two of them used by one of main character (actually, I plan to merge another article into this, if only it survive this nomination). Still don't think it's notable? Of cause, nothing interesting if you don't interest in that subject. For extreme example, I never interesting in American history at all, so even someone like Thomas Jefferson isn't noatble to me. L-Zwei 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1. Notability is not subjective. Thomas Jefferson is notable because he meets several of our notability guidelines for people. Whether or not a lone editor finds a topic interesting or not is completely irrelevant. 2. "Finally, for notability, while being "grunt"-type machine, it's one that cause whole conflict in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and spawn various variations, two of them used by one of main character...Still don't think it's notable?" OK. You have not asserted the significance of the subject of this article. You have simply recounted the plot of a children's television show. 3. "...the article isn't FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, textbook nor plot summary". Yes it is, it's a plot summary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The fact that you call Gundam a "children's television show" demonstrates that you have no understanding of the subject whatsoever. Gundam SEED in particular was actually rather controversial in Japan because of its content. Try coming back to the conversation when you've got something more productive to say than "it's not relevant to my interests so it's not relevant to anybody's interests. Iceberg3k 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you look at point 1 above, I have stated exactly the opposite. If, after reading this article, I have no understanding of the topic, then that probably says as much about the value of the article as it does about me. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's part of an overall project to list the various mechanics of the Gundam SEED anime. I don't see why the fact it's discussing fictional mechanics should matter. Wikipedia is supposed to collect all notable information of humanity and that includes works of fiction--HellCat86 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT, which states that even characters (i.e. actual people who do actual things) should get no more than brief coverage in a consolidated article unless they are both widely recognised and utterly central to the work in which they feature. This isn't even a character, it's... uh... OK, I can't actually quite work out what it is from the article. Some kind of combat robot? Whatever it is, it's not important enough to need so much detail (detail which is inadequately referenced). Take it to some kind of Gundam wiki. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dumping-ground for fictional specifications of non-existent robots. — Haeleth Talk 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I love how when people don't have an interest in a fictional entry they start calling for it to be taken to a specialised Wiki. Is this article hurting anybody via its existence? I've seen far more obsecure and useless entries then this (eg, a few months ago I stumbled on a entry for a bunch of one off villains from a straight-to-video Home Alone movie)--HellCat86 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment 1. You have stumbled into Uncle G's "If Article X then Article Y" fallacy. The simple existence of comparable articles is not a precedent for this one being kept. 2. Who is this hurting? Well, firstly it's wasting space on Wikimedia's servers. More importantly, by not obeying some of our core policies (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT) it's damaging Wikipedia's reputation. 3. If I believed there was an encyclopaedia article to be had on this topic then I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Haeleth: Gundamcruft part 43789, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collecting of trivia. What is an M58E4 Gatling gun ? A wire-guided gunbarrel pod (rapid-fire railgun) ? What possible use is this article to anyone who hasn't already studied the fictional material from which it is taken in ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment As much use as Enterprise_(NX-01) is to anyone who who hasn't studied the fictional material from which it came from. No idea what a Triton-class spatial torpedoes is.

KeepJ'onn J'onzz 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Quiddity99 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Quiddity99
Delete Maybe a general article on the weapons in this anime course be valid, but I can't see how a separate article for each one is needed. Denaar 12:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not an enemy of anime articles, but this fails notability by a longshot from a wire-guided gunbarrel pod. Dekimasu 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN, and too much OR. WMMartin 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. We've already been through waves and waves of Gundam-related deletionist nonsense before. Iceberg3k 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: "Keep" with no coherent rationale is avote, but AFD is not a vote. That's three keeps without any logic, one of which is incivil into the bargain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not uncivility, just fact combined with brusqueness. This AfD covers the exact same alleged ground as several AfD attempts on Gundam articles before. It's pure egocentrism at its finest. An article of this type takes up at most a handful of kilobytes, and is virtually invisible to anybody who doesn't go explicitly looking for it (I say "virtually" because there's a one in one-point-five-million chance that it could be randomly pulled up by somebody hitting the "Random article" link). However, for the people who DO go looking for it (unless they're looking for it for the purpose of agitating the feces), it's invaluable. The information included is purposeful, not random, so "indiscriminate collection" doesn't fit. "Original research" is incorrect - the article is just cited poorly. In-universe perspective, as mentioned, is grounds for a rewrite, not for deletion. And WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. That basically leaves the nominator's personal preference as a reason for deletion, which is insufficient. Going by the precedent of previous Gundam-related AfDs, this discussion should be closed. This ground has already been trod. Iceberg3k 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Uncle G's notability essay - read it at User:Uncle G/On notability - is always good when it comes to cruft. Where are the third-party sources ? How could a reader verify that "the TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero served as the basis for a more advanced design fielded in late CE 73, the TS-MA4F Exass" ? Or that "very few Gunbarrel Strikers are produced" ? The article is not verifiable, the subject is not notable, the likelihood of original research is compelling. True, "an article of this type takes up at most a handful of kilobytes, and is virtually invisible to anybody who doesn't go explicitly looking for it". What separates Wikipedia from Uncyclopedia is that this is an encyclopedia and has guidelines on content. If you want to create a Gundam Wiki, to document every last detail, Wookiepedia and the Runescape Wiki have shown the way. And yes, this ground has indeed been well trodden. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professions (World of Warcraft), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Simpsons (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional inventions and machines on The Simpsons and there are hundreds more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] autocentrism

Looks like a new definition for an old word to me, but I have sufficient doubt about this to send it here instead of ProDding it. --Jemiller226 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It also has another meaning, but if you have read new urbanist literature or even done a google search, you'll find the term in common acceptance for its modern meaning.--Loodog 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search and looked through the first 6 pages of hits or so (so, about 60 of the 104 current useful hits), and all of the listings I saw were either in a language I couldn't understand or they dealt with the "old" definition of autocentrism, which is basically a more general version of the word Eurocentrism. Doing a google define on the word came up totally empty. This absolutely screams neologism, and basically by saying that it comes from new urbanist literature, you prove as much. --Jemiller226 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if wikipedia has an anti-neologism policy. There's wigger, metrosexual, e-mail, etc...--Loodog 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you're right. It's a guideline, not a policy. In this case, since there are so few incidences of this definition of the word on the Internet, the word is a protologism. "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." --Jemiller226 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - only 254 ghits. Transwikiing to Wiktionary is an alternate solution. MER-C 07:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone verify the source is reliable or find scientific journals using the term? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to car-free movement or delete, since the source is obviously about that, and the definition given seems to be related to it (it's an antonym, but still...) --Interiot 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find this with an advanced google search. Does that count?

Similar searches for autocentric are somewhat less successful.

When searched with "urban" the results are consistent for the "modern" meaning.--Loodog 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Give us some decent references and I'll reconsider. WMMartin 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep, too soon since last nomination of article for deletion. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arch Coal

Non Notable, Poorly written tripe, VanityLady Nemisis 04:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong and speediest keep. This is a Fortune 500 company. Nominator registered yesterday and her userpage advertises that she will write articles on order for cash; the MyWikiBiz precedent establishes that for such an account to nominate business articles for deletion is a serious conflict of interest.

I see on further checking (I knew I remembered this article from somewhere) that this was the article that brought the MyWikiBiz situation to a head. Recommend strong keep as per above but also a rewrite. Newyorkbrad 04:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Procedural Keep due to Deletion Review endorsing this article (or a version of it) in October 2006. Too soon for renomination for afd. I don't fault the nominator as the deletion review is difficult to find (I still can't find it) and is not noted in the talk page. See article log for the DRV references. Original article was speedy deleted by User:Jimbo as corporate spam, but this decision was overturned in DRV. THe article seems to meet WP:CORP - but potential nominators should wait atleast another month or two before nominating to afd. Bwithh 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup comment This particular nominator should not nominate this article at all - appears to be a commercial conflict of interest here, as pointed out by Newyorkbrad. Is there a policy yet against commercial exploitation of Wikipedia by user editing, or has that still not been settled? Bwithh 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Very Speedy Keep - Just by being a Fortune 500 company automatically qualifies it under WP:CORP. And what's with a spammer nominating AfDs? --Oakshade 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Jimbo Wales speedy deleted an earlier version of this article (which was not that different from this one) for being corporate spam, and he didn't think being a Fortune 500 company overruled the spam concern in the discussion that followed, as I recall. A spammer might nominate articles to create business for themselves, or to undermine rivals Bwithh 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Still speedy keep due to it being a Fortune 500 component. --Oakshade 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history. It looks very different then the one at the start. I say keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmAndLeg (talk • contribs) .

keep Ignoring all ad hominem arguements to this point, the company is a Fortune 500 company, which is a specific and narrowly defined exception to standard notability rules under WP:CORP. Even beyond this, the company is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third party references, and the article is well referenced. The subject thus meets the Primary Notability Criteria even ignoring its Fortune 500 status. I see no problems at all with the article as written. --Jayron 32 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a speedy keep to me, with a whiff of bad faith nom, or at the least WP:POINT. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Supremacy

Just maybe there is something here, but nothing in the article demonstrates what. It started off as an Antisemitic diatribe and has now been reduced to a dismissal of its own title. Either the term has some currency, and relates to a concept worthy of an encyclopedia article, and hence there is an article here that can be written from citable sources—if so, show us—or there isn't and this should be deleted. Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe for the record:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish supremacism
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism
Jewish supremacy (speedied for recreation of the above)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeofascism

Surely works of Jewish Cabal :-) `'mikkanarxi 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I see no sources, and I can't find any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No sources to back up any claim relating to this article. Original research.Duhon
Delete Non-notable insult. Kla'quot 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is just asking for trouble. A pointless article which serves no purpose except as a Neo-Nazi troll-magnet. --Folantin 08:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this neoligism violating Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, as there is no such universal term. It's drivel and racist nonsense, just how "supremacist" were the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust and in other massacres? This is just a projection of the imaginings of racist White supremacists who assume that the Jews "think" like them, when the opposite is the case, Jews have stood at the forefront of helping other people make headway, with self-abnegation and often at their own peril. IZAK 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per IZAK. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete racist, unsourced nonsense, and the term seems to be used by anti-semitic sites. Wikitionary has a definition of the term[3], which is all we really need. Hut 8.5 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete in the name of all that is holy (or, hell, even on behalf of non-holy entities). -- Kicking222 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If the term could be proven as having widespread cultural usage (i.e. notability), then *Merge into Antisemitism -Markeer 19:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No indication of any widespread use of the term.--Anthony.bradbury 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — The author says it all - "there is no evidence to back up this claim." –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Amoruso 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice - Put a stake through its heart, bury it at a crossroads, and salt the ground. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete on the grounds that even the article suggests there is no evidence to back up claims therein. I'd say speedy, but I can't say "attack".... --Dennisthe2 23:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --DLand ^TALK 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Camw 02:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete There are no sources, and the little text present either denies its existence or slyly implies that it does (wink, wink) with out any support either way. Alansohn 06:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete for now. I suspect this term describes a real and notable concept. However, the article in its present state doesn't provide any useful and non-biased information on it. Delete unless or until someone creates a truly encyclopedic article on this topic. —Psychonaut 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete not really a notable term like White supremacy or Islamofascism. Rever e ndG 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm the author of the current article, I just changed it to make it sound better, but that's the most I can do. I can't make it an actually used term with sources, so delete.
Delete, make this thing a snowball already. Seraphimblade 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - This isn't just a snowball, it's a blizzard! This can be closed as soon as an admin notices it. Doc Tropics 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete (Hah I bet no one saw that coming!). The term is very common (just do a google search) and is used by both anti-semites and in a more general context (see for example [4]). However, I'm not able to find any reliable sources that discuss the term enough to make it any more than the tiny stub it is now. JoshuaZ 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete - It's real in the sense that anti-semites use it to justify their positions. Perhaps it would be best merged into the Anti-semitism article, if it's not already there. --Elipongo 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article is unsourced and has no real substantive content. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Teyler

Seems like a NN person. Is a political consultant in Georgia, who managed the races of one county district attorney and one county commissioner. --Czj 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NN, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI, as the user who created the article only has that one edit. Green451 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Campaign managers are not notable. Stebbins 02:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this painful exercise in self-promotion. I'm more notable than this, and I don't have an article ( and nor should I ) ! WMMartin 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It's funny to note that the politicians whose campaigns he managed don't even have articles! --Czj 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Speedy deletion of this article was overturned at WP:DRV and is now here for full discussion. Another prior to consider is this arbitration case. I'm only the poor admin doing the clerking here, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, no real reason to delete. Very sorry that you got stuck doing the clerking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I asked for it... :-} ~ trialsanderrors 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep This was a significant news event and a complex story with wide repercussions. The references consist mostly of the most well-respected news outlets in Canada. See the article talk page for an earlier deletion discussion. Kla'quot 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete As far as I can tell this is not a widely-cited landmark case, not quoted in the law reviews, not regarded as a legal precedent. Some minor local sensationalism is not a reason for having a long article which is detrimental to the reputation of a living individual, it constitutes undue weight. Wikipedia is not Private Eye. Guy(Help!) 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you criteria for an event being serious national news as opposed to minor local sensationalism? Kla'quot 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not only local. Almost all of Canada's national newspapers have articles about this case. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

~~*Weak Delete~~ Both sides have a point, but for me the privacy concerns overwhelm the case for relevance. Stammer 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be saying the same thing if Rachel Marsden had not later become famous? Kla'quot 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply Actually I did not realise she was famous. That modifies my take on it. Stammer 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Further For me the fact that she is famous increases the event's notability and tilts the balance towards Keep. As for accuracy, as JGGardiner points out, it's always an issue. Stammer 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

She's not particularly famous. If she was, is that a reason to libel her? Please read ArbCom material. The decision says this should be stubbed. Are you trying to over-rule ArbCom? 206.191.39.205 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed Arbcom decision does not say that, and the case is still open anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep due to its local importance (it is a HUGE story here) and also because it is extremely notable, judging by how many reliable sources there are for this case. Any problems with the article can easily be fixed, if that's the case. There's no reason to delete the whole article altogether. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
While keeping this article may be opening a can of worms, the same has been said about the entire Wikipedia project. I don’t think that we should shy away from a difficult topic. I agree with the anon.’s concerns and I feel that it should obviously conform to WP:BLP and that it can be radically cut or stubbed if it does not. But I think that should be said of all of our articles that relate to living persons. I think we can’t begin excluding articles just because we can get them wrong because I hate to say it but we can get them all wrong. That said, I understand that we have indeed gotten things very wrong in relation to Marsden but I think we should fix it rather than pretend that she doesn’t exist (or exists only as a stub). So I’d keep this article and hope that a few vigilant editors keep their eyes on it as well. Thanks. --JGGardiner 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Arbcom. Too many problems. If kept, should be stubbed. 206.191.39.205 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - uhm, given the high level of sourcing whatever problems this article may have, AfD is not the place to bring it. Sourced, Encyclopaedic. WilyD 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean that any court case where sources can be cited is encyclopaedic? That would be most of them, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you seem to think this issue involved criminal or civil law. This was handled entirely within the university system, and as the article lead indicates, it led to a rewriting of procedures within that system. There was no court case. Kla'quot 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- - Not quite - but in general, court cases that receive this level of media attention are encyclopaedic, in the limit that Wikipedia is not paper. As much as I hate to use the word notability, press coverage is a reasonable measure of it for modern court cases. My point was more about the quality, quantity and nature of sources, rather than their mere existance (though WP:V is always the first test I apply at AfD). WilyD 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Passes primary notability criterion: multiple, nontrivial, independent, secondary sources. Widely reported, non-local sensationalism at worst. Inclusion of this material in Rachel Marsden would grossly imbalance it; that's why it was spun out. —Cryptic 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Cryptic and others. Bucketsofg 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep The subject meets notability criteria. If it needs to be edited to make sure it's done encyclopedically, NPOV, and tastefully, that's a different problem.Bobanny 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Don't see reason to delete. Follows usual criteria for inclusion. --Oakshade 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but move to Marsden-Donnelly case - is there any need for 'harassment' in the title? Particularly when all the references refer to it as the "Marsden-Donnelly case". Proto::type 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per WilyD (notability is unquestionable), and because the good of the encyclopedia comes before making things a little easier for Arbcom (not that they need it, as the case in question has been closed). --Aaron 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable case, though the less salacious the article the happier I'll be. WMMartin 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the poor current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as far as I can see. Lankiveil 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, clerical error, deletion was endorsed at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve.museum

A prior AfD, speedily closed as delete, was overturned at WP:DRV and is now here for full discussion. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, registering that I'm not entirely sure how you got the decision to relist out of the DRV. An AfD isn't bad, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to .museum and perhaps give a brief mention there, if it can be inserted without disrupting the flow of the article. Subject is obviously legit, per the plenty of sources and the fact that there are not many sites on the .museum domain, as registration criteria are very, very stringent. However, not sure that this quite merits its own article, so I pick the middle-of-the-road approach. --Czj 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of this debate was Speedy Keep, due to a technicality: typographical error in nomination. --Czj 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Amazing Race

C'mon people WP:ISNOT an indecrimate colection of information, the previous nom was a farce, I've voted on and seen much more worthy articles get the boot. †he Bread 06:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Are you sure you meant The Amazing Race, as in the Emmy-winning, hit TV show? Gzkn 06:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Speedy Keep~~. Wait a sec... this nomination is a bit screwed up. Is this for the show itself (as implied by the links), or for a page with trivia on the show (as implied by the title of this AfD page)? If it's for the show, speedy keep as a notable, Emmy-winning show. If it's for the trivia, delete as unencyclopedic. This nomination needs to be speedy-closed and re-opened under the proper name if it is for the wrong subject. --Czj 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep Bad faith nom. Hang on... The above editor is right. This seems very strange. Close and let the nominator know he made an error so that he can renominate the article he really wanted deleted. MartinDK 07:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, if this is an AFD of The Amazing Race trivia then let's restart the whole nomination again. I don't think this user is nominating the main article for deletion. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

07:35, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 23 (enter The Amazing Race trivia (second nomination))

07:33, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race trivia (second nomination) (touchups)

07:32, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race trivia (second nomination) (noming The Amazing Race trivia)

07:28, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) m The Amazing Race trivia (argh wrong tag, this time nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race trivia (second nomination)) (top)

07:25, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) The Amazing Race trivia (this time it is nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race trivia nom no. 2)

05:12, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) m The Amazing Race trivia (no i'm not, there's already been one)

05:10, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) The Amazing Race trivia (nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race trivia)

Clearly he made an error. MartinDK 07:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the nominator. Gzkn 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as repost, and salted. Proto::type 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asher Heimermann

Recreation of a deleted autobiographical article by Asher Heimermann (talk • contribs). Fails notability in that the subject has only won middle school and high school elections. Would also like to add that most of the statements are unsourced and not verifiable. Suggest a Speedy Delete. This information would be most appropriate on the author's user page. And there, he should feel free to use first person. Gzkn 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I belive the Article should stay. It has good information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asher Heimermann (talk • contribs) .
I think it has alot of information about him. Plus, it looks like he is serving on a local board with the city or county. 209.103.228.127 06:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that this IP is most likely a meatpuppet. Gzkn 06:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what more information you need. I am serving on a local committee. I won the Student Action Committee I am a Wisconsin student politician. Do I need to run for President? I am too young for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asher Heimermann (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Gzkn 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it was already stated this article lacks reliable sources. = Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. You're going to need better credentials than serving on a "local committee". Stebbins 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete recreation of deleted article. Salt the earth. Also you should be glad if you get out of this without a block. Recreating your own biography is just plain lame... MartinDK 07:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Writing about oneself is considered a conflict of interest and is generally opposed for articles in the main space. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 08:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt as pretty sad internet business card... SkierRMH,09:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing. Stammer 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, AFD is not for redirects. WP:RFD is. Punkmorten 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodson, Virginia

I do not know why this page exists. It simply redirects to Bristol, Virginia. The page at Bristol, Virginia does not mention Goodson at all. The external link for the city of Bristol, Virginia, makes no mention of any place called Goodson. The town of Goodson does not seem to exist. This page has existed since December 2005. Hoax? •DanMS 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The city of Goodson, Virginia, was renamed Bristol, Virginia in 1890. Tankred 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please add this to the article? Punkmorten 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per the above. Nice piece of research there! MartinDK 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted Viridae ^Talk 11:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Himbo

Dicdef/neologism that's already present on Wiktionary. Seraphimblade 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Blimey but that's a lot of work on this article! Nonetheless, it doesn't advance beyond a dicdef: so delete. Vizjim 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I almost feel bad about this, it's so well referenced and everything. But delete as dicdef. riana_dzasta 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Rewrite - I tried prodding but ~~the original author~~ an removed it without correcting the problem. Rklawton 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- As a matter of record, I am not the original author, and I *did* point out quite clearly in my edit summary when I removed the prod, why the prod was inappropriate. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - ~~No you didn't. A summary reading: Removed inappropriate stub notice and cleaned up list isn't clear at all.~~ Rklawton 14:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Cimon Avaro's edit summary reads "Needs editing, but appears to be a real concept on a par with bimbo, removing PROD and wikifying leadin sentence. Needs to be NPOVed, and probably most of the list needs to go." Seems clear to me. Vizjim 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error. I was reading the wrong edit summary. Rklawton 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Bimbo. - FireSpike Editor Review! 23:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Bimbo. "Himbo" is a well-enough established term that it warrants a paragraph in the bimbo article, similar to how "it boy" is noted in the It girl article (which, full disclosure, I added following the redirect of It boy to It girl). Otto4711 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete from Wikipedia; add to Wiktionary if it's not already there. I first heard this word ~24 years ago, and it's certainly a real word. But we're not a dictionary. WMMartin 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Hale

Contested speedy. Remarkable, perhaps, but not notable. "Ben Hale" is a common name I guess but this Ben Hale doesn't come up at all in the first Google few pages - granting that people born in 1910 have less presence on the net than younger folk, I supppose. He does have a book on Amazon. If I knew more about his radio show, maybe, but I don't have any reason to suppose it wasn't a local show on a low-watt station. Herostratus 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, can't find a thing on the man in context of a radio show, only mention of real-estate position is in his obituary. Agree with Herostratus-sounds like a pretty cool guy if you knew him, but not too much verifiable information on him seems to be out there. Seraphimblade 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per those above. Definitely seems like an impressive person, but largely unverifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Seems like a cool guy, but WP is not an obituary. Gzkn 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, WP:NOT. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete until someone can find more verifiable info. riana_dzasta 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable yet, and unverifiable. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 23:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the two previously-deleted articles named "Ben Hale" were not about this individual; rather, they were generic adolescent nonsense. I have no comment on the nonagenarian. DS 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMil-Norge

Very short article about a Norwegian BDSM organisation. The article does not really claim very much notability. I proposed it for deletion but the prod was contested with this comment:

Definitely not a valid prod. Appears to be a national organization with thousands of members, including hundreds of couples. In this particular subculture, in a country of that size, that is a lot.

This looks like the only reason for its notability is its number of members. I don't think that is enough for notability. I think some Finnish BDSM organisations also have several hundred members, and Finland is a slightly bigger country than Norway. Weak delete. JIP | Talk 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: WP:V is more important here; is there published articles out there? It strikes me as a little small to be verifiable and discrete; unless they or someone else has been making noise, there's probably nothing to verify it from.--Prosfilaes 10:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete only ghits are the offical site and wikipedia mirrors, fails WP:V and probably non-notable. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floro Fighting System

I next to no meaningful Ghits out of the 93 unique hits for "Floro fighting system", and 49 unique Ghits for "Ray Flora" + eskrima. Apart from the wiki pages which are the most prominent, the vast majority are blog entries, and a significant collection of wiki mirrors either of the article or of our List of Eskrima systems picked up by other wiki mirrors. Delete as failing WP:NN. Ohconfucius 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also looking at the authors history this may fail WP:SPAM. As such it qualifies for speedy. This phrasing We found that especially in weapon sparring, the non-weapon hand gets hit often if it tries to get involved in distances greater than extreme close range. also verifies this. Why say We found if it isn't written by the creators themselves? MartinDK 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - conflict of interest. MER-C 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't read far from a promotional pamphlet. Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable, and even if it was, there is no way to verify the information on the article other than by going to the author's own personal webpage. Reads like a flyer posted around for classes signup. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable advertisement.Peter Rehse 02:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eds Easy Diner

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP. this chain of 5 restaurants in the UK specialising in a retro 1950's decor, and the artiucle provides one site which has customer reviews. I get 74 unique Ghits, the vast majority are directory listings. Amongst these are a very small number of reviews 1, 2, 3. It's known, but the overall feel from searching the directories for reviews is underwhelming notability. Delete Ohconfucius 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, yet another non-notable restaurant chain. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 00:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - based on those multiple independent reviews in the nom, particularly from Time Out (major publication in London). --Oakshade 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Just because a restaurant has been reviewed a couple of times does not make it notable. Also don't like that this article looks like a PR job. WMMartin 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (n.b., but I've userfied it to User:Symode09/Water Crisis (Australia)). Proto::type 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Crisis (Australia)

Original research essay, contains duplicate material with articles such as dryland salinity and global warming. Endorsed deletion proposal was contested on my talk page. Please avoid any "AfD jargon" as we are dealing with a newbie who has made an effort to address the concerns raised. MER-C 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We should clean it up, not delete it. It's an important issue, and he's tried. If it was wikified, it'd be fine. Add some sources as well. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 08:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I co-prod'd the article with the following comments: "Supposition, duplication of info already on other articles (salinity, global warming), plus the above stated reasons". Although a very well-written piece, it is original research. Some of the links are non-specific, they just point to a general page, and at the very least support the original research theory. Bubba hot ep 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is still just an essay and would require massive reconstruction if it was to meet our usual requirements for what we include here. It was requested that we avoid AfD jargon so I encourage the author to read the policies himself. Basically we require ways of verifying the information using reliable sources. Reliable sources usually means independent sources that we can trust. Also we don't allow original research. Generally what you want to refrain from is posting your own ideas on the subject and not ask the reader questions inside the text. Sorry this one fails, don't let it discourage you. Happy editing, MartinDK 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, although reluctantly, because it's better than 99% of what turns up here. Where it falls down is that it seems to involve Original Research (presenting solutions and explaining why the government hasn't done X thing is always risky, and you'll need sources to show that these are in fact the best solutions and that this is why the government hasn't acted) and also to duplicate other articles, with much broader sources. What I would suggest as the best option is to hunt out sources for everything that isn't already covered in Water crisis and move everything that can be moved to that article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the above. Let it grow inside Water crisis until it is mature enough to get its own article. Also keep in mind that most articles here don't start out as long finished articles. Usually they start as a stub and some of the best ones actually start out as sections in a broader article. Just keep trying, use the help that is available here and try to take advantage of what is already written here by letting it grow from a broader article. MartinDK 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, mainly original research. This article has a number of points, but is an essay and original research. Try writing other articles, please don't be discouraged. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is not a well-written article; the author needs to read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for guidance. This is an important topic and has been discussed in such arenas as BBC Radio 4 in the UK, but the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. It is a noble attempt and describing an important topic and the author is to be commended for this. Writing for an encyclopedia is a different discipline than writing an essay. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - yes, you notice how I said piece not article. The author definitely should be commended, I would like to make clear, also. Bubba hot ep 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Either delete or redirect to Drought in Australia not synonomous but perhaps near enough--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. While a good article could be written on this topic as most Australian cities face ongoing water supply problems, unfortunately it is original research at the moment. It has been a key issue in the past few state elections notably the West Australian, Queensland and the current Victorian elections. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite, The current content is more or less original research, that much is certain. Still, I feel that an article of the particular Australian circumstances, and the public reaction (water restrictions, etc), is probably worth having. Lankiveil 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Keep I am the origional author. I can definately see whaere you are coming from and the problems with the article. Should I aldo remove the solution sections?

symode09 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Userfy as essay which has merit, but not as an article in its current state. Ansell 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. MER-C 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. OR. WMMartin 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

KeepI agree with other comments about the issues with this article, however I don't think the article is as far from being acceptable as others seem to think. What it really needs is a section to establish the nature of water shortage problem that is specfic to Australia, eg Australia has lowest rainfall of any continent, etc. The author has indicated they are open to improvement.--Oz lowman 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergent philosophy

This is not a real concept. It looks like someone's personal thoughts, or at least the thoguhts of a small group of people. Also the philosophies which are linked to from the article are not real either. If I use Google to look for it I only get about 500 results, of which most are for all those fake Wikipeda sites you get nowadays, which are probably just copied from here. Please delete this page. Wikipedia should not have articles about things which are not properly documented in the scholarly literature. Thank you. TechnoLuddite 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - seems like a non-notable neologism - 1410 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced pubphilosophycruft. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per above --Neigel von Teighen 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR, as are at least half of the examples linked to. Pete.Hurd 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:OR. Rever e ndG 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. It should be noted that this is this article's second AFD, the prior being back in 2004 and visible on the article's talk page. I voted on that discussion; my vote is again the same, that it's legitimate as a concept, and the page may have usefulness as such, but in itself only an emergent neologism. Since the concept itself is useful, is there any other more valid name for it? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Netural. This should just be a catagory page. There will never be enough "meat" to make a real article. However, I am suspicious of the motives of the person that nominated this for deletion. To wit, their statement: Also the philosophies which are linked to from the article are not real either. I'm tired of people trying to sneak through deletions of long-established and well-sourced articles - this is the beginning of another such attempt, I'm afraid. Mjk2357 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm troubled about this as well... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unsourced. Also, we're not in the business of predicting the future or documenting original research. WMMartin 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "minor philosophies" would be a more appropriate category. You're right, "emerging" does say something about the future. I don't think Objectivism is ever going to "emerge" more than it has now, for example. Mjk2357 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As stated in the debate, WP:WINAD only applies to articles consisting solely of dictionary definitions. theProject 06:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it doesn't have articles on nouns unless there is something notable about them. The difficulty this article has in even defining what a box is, never mind trying to come up with some sort of history for a concept that has always been with us throughout history, just demonstrates the reason such prohibitions are in place. There are already numerous box-related articles: just take a look at Box (disambiguation). What isn't needed is an automatically redundant article that can never be more than a dictionary definition Vizjim 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - WP:WINAD can only be used to delete or transwiki dictionary definitions or lists of dictionary definitions. This one is neither. Yes, it needs some serious work, but this problem doesn't require deletion. MER-C 08:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article consists exactly of a circular and not terribly good definition, followed by a list of definitions of types of boxes, most of which already have their own articles. I'm not suggesting transiki as the content is so weak: this page would be better used as a redirect to Box (disambiguation). Vizjim 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep There has been serious changes in the usages and types of boxes throughout history. Just because Wikipedia is seriously weak on large summary articles doesn't mean we should delete them in favor of lists of articles.--Prosfilaes 10:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, can you name one change in the use of boxes throughout the whole of history? From "thing you keep things in" to...? Types of boxes could be covered in dedicated articles. Vizjim 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Keep what things in? You could dismiss a lot of articles this way, but I think automobile and airplane and computer and planet and wheel and box all deserve summary articles that describe their origins (some cultures don't have boxes as we know them) and group the variations so you can find a subarticle without knowing exactly what you're looking for. Lists of Wikipedia articles do not make up for good overall articles; people looking for information about computers should not be faced with a list "Altair, Apple I, Apple IIe, ...) and be forced to figure out what they need from that.--Prosfilaes 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But why would they need to figure out what the word "box" means? If someone were to come up with a history of the box, the evolution of the box, the social impact of the box (you know, all the stuff in the other articles you mention) then this would be a valid article. I'd add 'em if I could find 'em but there's nothing around that I can see. This remains a dictionary definition and nothing more. Vizjim 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then it's not true that it's "an automatically redundant article that can never be more than a dictionary definition". If it's merely a mediocre article, I don't see any reason to delete it.--Prosfilaes 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that these improvements would not be possible without original research (just check through these [5] [6] [7] [8]), therefore given the article cannot and will not ever improve beyond its current (dire rather than mediocre) state. Vizjim 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, ever heard of a library?--Prosfilaes 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why? Have you found a book about the history of boxes there? I've checked the British Library catalogue and found nothing, but the search URL won't save. Vizjim 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like someone needs to take a trip to the box factory. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 11:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Danny's a box! Damn you, a box! riana_dzasta 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, oh wow, I was actually reading this article a few weeks ago just to see what it might be like. Reasonable little article, nothing about it suggests it needs to go. ~~I'm removing the idiotic 'trivia' section at the bottom, though.~~ Nah, let it be for now. riana_dzasta 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be "bold", if you could call this bold, and remove it myself. --SonicChao ^talk 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I wasn't feeling bold enough :) riana_dzasta 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. You have got to be kidding. --SonicChao ^talk 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not, and rather than being uncivil could you not give an actual reason? Vizjim 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and improve the article, close this debate and enclose it in a box. Newyorkbrad 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The article is not a dictionary entry. Like many article (i.e. Carton, Machine, etc...) it presents encyclopaedic information such as types in our case. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Avala 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is written as an encyclopedic entry, nothing of a dicdef. Are you trying to kid me or something?? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep We are considering deleting box? The subject is verifiable, and boxes, being ever present in our lives, are certainly notable.-- danntm ^T _C 01:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per other keeps, it's box †he Bread 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Yay box! --theDemonHog 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Arrrghh. Clearly I'm alone on this one. WP:SNOW would suggest a graceful withdrawal of the nomination. Vizjim 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChaosZero Ultimate Installer

Non-notable software product of dubious legality. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - 13 ghits. Definitely nn. MER-C 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, promotional and non-notable. Seraphimblade 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Rever e ndG 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination seems to have been withdrawn and the Deletion review is still running, while the article has just survived two AfD's earlier this week. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

Breaking my promise (and well, there really aren't any guidelines/policies on when it is appropriate to renominate an article), but as it is difficult to get the discussion noticed on the talk page and it certainly needs more participants, I am hereby nominating it again. And please take this seriously.

The article is redundant as its contents are already in the Architecture section of the Linux kernel article and the notability of the debate is rather weak, more of a curiousity than encyclopedical material. msikma says that the article can be expanded with their respective views, and sure, that is true, but pros and cons for microkernels/monolithic kernels are already discussed in their respective articles. Having it in this article too would just cause further redundancy. And, please see it for what it is: a discussion/debate (or flamewar) on a mailing list.

Suggested action: Delete or redirect to Linux kernel.

Lifting some earlier arguments/comments from other wikipedians:

"The decision was to keep the content, not to keep it as a separate article; most of the people suggesting keep did not rule out a merge. "Could be expanded" is not a reason for keeping an article separated, since it can be expanded even if merged." -- Tizio, on the article's talk page.

"Should there be article about debate on what kind of configuration management system is the best for the kernel development? Debate over filesystems? GPL3 vs GPL2 ? On proper threading implementation? Debate about binary drivers or other zillion of debates? Lunixcruft." -- Pavel Vozenilek, from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds_debate

"I usually prefer merged articles (as I prefer long, monolithic articles rather than fragmented articles) but I don't see any reason for a merger here" -- msikma, on the article's talk page. (Note the conflict of interest, msikma created the article.)

Memmke 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep This is getting REALLY annoying. This one is still at deletion review and you bring it here again? MartinDK 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Someone told me to take it there, so I did, but it was apparently not the right place for that. And please, don't try to avoid serious discussion. Memmke 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment No, you took it back here after your nomination failed. Then we told you to take it to deletion review in the strongest possible terms without blocking you for disrupting Wikipedia. We assumed good faith and that you didn't know any better. Now it is still being debated at deletion review and you try to bring it back here? I don't have to argue with disruptive editors. MartinDK 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - How is it disruptive? It wasn't sufficiently debated in the first debate. And no, it's not still being debated at deletion review, and I tried taking a discussion on the article's talk page, but that only led to a pointless one on one. Memmke 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment You are being disruptive by abusing AfD to prove a point. The closing admin determined that the subject had been debated enough for him to make a decision. Then you take it back here and the closing admin sends you to deletion review. The case at deletion review is still open. Expect this one to be closed very soon once an admin drops by.MartinDK 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        I'm not being disruptive, this is what AfD is for. While the deletion review case is still formally open, there's no active discussion going on. Memmke 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - classic case of criterion 5 at WP:SK applying here. There are articles which are speedily kept a couple of months after a previous AfD closure, so why should this one keep turning up every few days? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not renominating it on a "regular schedule", I am merely continuing what I feel wasn't sufficiently discussed (and what the closing admin thought can hardly be considered consensus). Memmke 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- And to turn the tables: You two are effectively disrupting wikipedia by disrupting this attempt to discussion. Memmke 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The first nomination was made on the 14th and closed on the 19th of this month. The second was made on the 20th ("just over 12 hours" after the first one, according to one comment) and closed on the same day. Today being the 23rd, I guess we could say that the 3 day interval is proof of restraint. The point about an AfD is that, by running for 5 days as the first one did, it creates enough time for a consensus to be reached. That the consensus doesn't march with what you want it to be is obvious, but it's a consensus nevertheless. Neither of the closing admins said that there wasn't consensus, and in fact in the second instance it was made quite clear that there was consensus. I'm not disrupting an attempt at discussion, either. What I'm doing is suggesting that further discussion be deferred until such time as it can gainfully be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Once he is sent off to Deletion Review there is a 5 day interval no matter what. Criterion 5 works as a further argument in this case. This is surreal... MartinDK 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - I thought there was probably a further issue in there, but I haven't followed it as closely as some, so I was only going on the frequent appearances on the AfD guestlist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        I can't believe you guys. Avoiding/skipping a discussion because of some miniscule technicalities. *sighs* Memmke 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's not quite that. It's a little more complex. First and foremost, the first AfD ran for 5 days. That's the length these things are meant to run so that a consensus can be arrived at. A consensus was arrived at and the AfD closed. It wasn't what you wanted the consensus to be, but that's the nature of the beast. Since then, to my knowledge you've opened another AfD on the same topic 12 hours later, taken the matter to DRV where it's meant to stay for 5 days regardless of the depth of the debate and then opened a third AfD. The topic may well be non-notable, but the idea is that the consensus back on the 19th was that it should be kept and there's little or no reason to assume that the consensus 4 days later is going to be much different. In 4 months, it could well be so. It's like constantly asking "are we there yet?" on a car trip. We weren't there a few minutes ago, so we probably aren't there yet either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        But most of the opinions adding up to the first AfD's consensus was based upon uninformed and WP:ILIKEIT "arguments". Memmke 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~
        
        [edit conflict]That may well be the case, but the admin who closed the discussion saw that as consensus to keep. Now, if we assume that the arguments were based on a faulty premise, you've got two options. The first is to wait a few months for the smoke to clear and then nominate the article again in the hope that people won't make the same mistakes as they did the first time round. The second is to go to WP:DRV and let that run its course. You've taken that option, as is shown by the post at DRV timestamped earlyish yesterday morning. Now all you need to do is to sit back and wait for everyone else to discuss it there. The fact that, 24 hours after the fact, you haven't got what you wanted out of DRV is immaterial. That's where it is currently, so opening another AfD on it isn't going to help matters (as I think you can see here). Again, if the consensus at DRV goes against you, the solution is to grin and bear it - and maybe wait a longer time than 72 hours before you re-open discussion. There are times when we all don't like the consensus of the community, but the point about Wikipedia is that we have to abide by it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        From my point of view, it's anything but "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" to wait another four month for something that could be dealt with today. Memmke 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        It is being dealt with today; we're keeping it.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's hardly being dealt with, only technicalities around it. Memmke 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        They aren't technicalities. People don't like defending their articles over and over, and many of them barely tolerate AfD at best. Letting people know that once they've justified their article's existence, they won't have to worry about it for another six months or so, is important so they don't feel under attack. Furthermore, AfD is a mess, and reducing the number of articles nominated that have passed once helps fix at least part of that.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Fine, six months it is then. I don't enjoy this "bite the disruptive fool" thing anyway. Memmke 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Unless, of course, someone man enough steps in to take this discussion. Memmke 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, abuse of process as per BigHaz. Vizjim 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep; just because you think it wasn't sufficiently discussed, does not mean you renominate it. --Prosfilaes 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as per the others. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This can be replaced with a disambiguation page if necessary. --Core desat 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Lord

"a title used in fiction to talk about a powerful villain, especially when pronouncing the real name is thought to bring bad luck ... Many of the clichés of a dark lord were based on totalitarian states with a fascist ideology" Sorry, but this is original research. The article speculates a bit about the vague definition of "dark lord" and then lists a number of antagonists from fiction. I'm sure this could redirect somewhere sensible, but this article just isn't encyclopedic. (Radiant) 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There's nothing really useful there anyway, and it was conflated with the "Evil Overlord" idea which isn't quite the same thing. It might be worth turning it into a disambiguation page pointing to various fictional characters that have been called "Dark Lord". All I can think of are Sauron and Lord Voldemort, but there may be others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Turn into disambiguation for fictional dark lords as suggested above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as orginal research. -- Whpq 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment — I'm not sure if it should deleted or turned into a disambiguation page - ultimately, the list would become very, very long if every villain from books, movies, games, and novels were put into it, and the resulting article would be a bit hard to maintain. Further, would the page only put fictional characters who were actually called the Dark Lord (like Voldemort, for example), or just any villain? I suppose I'm leaning towards deleting it - but what should the guidelines be for the disambiguation page? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, only the villains who have actually been called Dark Lord would be included. I think that would exclude any non-fictional villain. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, I meant fictional villain, sorry. =P –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea being to provide an index for someone who might be looking up a character under that name. There would be little point otherwise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely redirect/disambig to any fictional being that has actually been called, in relevant fiction Dank Lord. --humblefool ® 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete wow, this is a pointless article. Rever e ndG 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. - I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. This article turns my stomach with its uselessness. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Would make a great original article in some SFF magazine. Wouldn't mind if it got put in BJAODN, though maybe it's not that funny. WMMartin 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see any way to verify any of this. Now I need to go back and add Evil laugh to the AfD page too.Slavlin 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Nandesuka 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Austrian footballers

Duplicates Category:Austrian footballers. Lists such as these can be useful if they have redlinks (thus providing a basis for expansion of the topic) or provide additional information, but this list has neither. Punkmorten 09:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of goalkeepers - criteria for inclusion are too vague for it to be an actually useful list. I would actually delete all List of xxxan footballers articles for the same reason. A listing scheme for internationally-capped players (e.g.List of Sweden international footballers) is a better way of doing things, as there is an objective and verifiable standard for inclusion. Qwghlm 09:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I like lists, but Punkmorten made the crucial case in his nomination. This list doesn't have any of the advantages they hold over categories. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LIST. Nominator presents no argument for deletion. WilyD 22:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players. – Elisson • T • C • 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't like possibly infinite lists such as these. Far better to use categories. --Angelo 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Nandesuka 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Belgian footballers

Duplicates Category:Belgian footballers. Lists such as these can be useful if they have redlinks (thus providing a basis for expansion of the topic) or provide additional information, but this list has neither. Punkmorten 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of goalkeepers - criteria for inclusion are too vague for it to be an actually useful list. I would actually delete all List of xxxan footballers articles for the same reason. A listing scheme for internationally-capped players (e.g.List of Sweden international footballers) is a better way of doing things, as there is an objective and verifiable standard for inclusion. Qwghlm 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I like lists, but Punkmorten made the crucial case in his nomination. This list doesn't have any of the advantages they hold over categories. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players. – Elisson • T • C • 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you want an article deleted that's your business, but please don't lie about it to see it done. WilyD 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Calling me a liar is serious business, so I sincerely hope that you have a good reason to do so, or you are on the border of breaking WP:NPA. Now please provide that reason, for the sake of both of us. – Elisson • T • C • 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I didn't attack you, I asked you (fairly politely, in fact) not to advance false arguments in an articles for deletion discussion. That's a pretty reasonable thing to request, I believe. You said no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players - which is a directly false statement. If you accidentally misevaluated the article, then I'll apologise about saying you did deliberately what you may have done in error. It didn't occur to me you might simply have what appeared to me to be a straightforward issue. WilyD 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Why is my comment "no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players" false? Can an opinion even be "true" or "false"? What does the list (in its present state) do, that the category doesn't? And calling someone a liar is not justified by saying it nicely. You could just have asked "could you please clarify what you mean by saying that the list has no use whatsoever?", and I would have gladly answered you. – Elisson • T • C • 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Opinions can be true or false. I can say My opinion is that addition of integers is non-commutative - my opinion is then false. The statement no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players is false by the same virtue. If your claim is that you didn't mean what you wrote, I'll happily retract my earlier statement - for the time being, however, I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean. As for the usefulness of lists, see WP:LIST - it articulates them better than I can. WilyD 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        No, an opinion can't be false. If I say, "My opinion is that addition of integers is non-commutative", you can't say that my opinion is false, because I (in this example) really do believe that "x + y ≠ y + x". An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. I stand by my first post. This list does not improve Wikipedia in any way that the category does not. That's what I mean. Now tell me why that's wrong, and plase do not answer with "read WP:LIST", as I have no idea what specific line or paragraph you refer to. – Elisson • T • C • 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Ironically, on the issue of whether opinions can be false, the opinion that they can't be is false. You can believe an opinion and it can still be false (in fact, I'd guess that every last person believes something that's factually inaccurate). One can certainly take an opinion on a question that's falsifiable. My experience tells me that if I merely copy & paste WP:LIST here I'll get slapped for being uncivil, but I'm not sure how else to explain the usefulness of lists. Lists serve as navigation aids, as growth structures and can organise a subject in a way categories can't - this is basically a stub-class list, but stub isn't a criterion for deletion (though I do see it used as such surprisingly often). WilyD 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        It is not an opinion that opinions can't be false, it is a fact. So, what you're basically saying is that all lists should be kept, as they "serve as navigation aids, as growth structures and can organise a subject in a way categories can't"? The category also serves as navigation aid, and regarding the growth structures and organisation of a subject, I see no difference whatsoever between List of Belgian footballers and Category:Belgian footballers. They both contain blue links only. They both contain the same names. They both list the names alphabetically. Now please tell me again what in WP:LIST applies to this case. – Elisson • T • C • 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Not really - lists need to be of encyclopaedic value, be verifiable, et cetera. The same standards that apply to non-list articles apply to list articles. But it's unreasonable to hold articles to a higher standard just because they're lists. As for how much use you personally find an article to be - I don't see why that's an important consideration. There are tons of useless articles (to me) in Wikipedia - I certainly wouldn't vote to delete them all. As for whether opinions can be wrong, it certainly is a fact that they can. My commutativity of addition example demonstrates that. WilyD 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Your comparison fails. I did not say "this is not a useful list", I said "this list is useful, but we already have a category that does the exact same thing, and it makes this list superfluous". See the difference? On opinions, I entitle you to the opinion of believing that opinions can be true or false, but it is a fact that they can't. Citing opinion once again: An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. Or this page: A statement of opinion expresses an attitude toward something – it makes a judgment, view, or conclusion, or gives an opinion that cannot be proven true or false. Or this page: A statement of opinion can be very well thought out but cannot be proved true or false - it is always open to debate. You mix up the opinion with the possible inclusion of a statement of fact in the opinion. I can never be proven wrong when saying "My opinion is that addition of integers is non-commutative", because you can't prove a person's opinion wrong. The only thing you can do is prove that the statement of fact contained in the opinion is wrong or right, but that still does not prove the opinion wrong or right. Either way, I don't see the point of this discussion, and I still haven't seen any explanation for why you called me a liar. – Elisson • T • C • 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Well, by that definition of opinion, this list is useful, but we already have a category that does the exact same thing, and it makes this list superfluous does not have an opinion in bold, but a factually incorrect basis for your opinion (since that statement is falsifiable and already shown to be false). You labelled a falsifiable statement that had already been falsified an opinion, I spoke with the same usage of the word - I'm not sure there's much motivation to muddy the issue now. As for the idea that an opinion can be an easily falsifiable statement, but can't be proven right or wrong - that is what comes out of the north end of a south facing bull. WilyD 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't like possibly infinite lists such as these. Far better to use categories. --Angelo 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Nandesuka 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Duplicates Category:Footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lists such as these can be useful if they have redlinks (thus providing a basis for expansion of the topic) or provide additional information, but this list has neither. Punkmorten 09:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of goalkeepers - criteria for inclusion are too vague for it to be an actually useful list. I would actually delete all List of xxxan footballers articles for the same reason. A listing scheme for internationally-capped players (e.g.List of Sweden international footballers) is a better way of doing things, as there is an objective and verifiable standard for inclusion. Qwghlm 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I like lists, but Punkmorten made the crucial case in his nomination. This list doesn't have any of the advantages they hold over categories. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players. – Elisson • T • C • 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't like possibly infinite lists such as these. Far better to use categories. --Angelo 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is a little ridiculous isn't it? Keep this one, otherwise delete all of them. // Laughing Man 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't even read the nomination, have you? Punkmorten 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Croatian footballers

Duplicates Category:Croatian footballers. Lists such as these can be useful if they have redlinks (thus providing a basis for expansion of the topic) or provide additional information, but this list has neither. Punkmorten 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of goalkeepers - criteria for inclusion are too vague for it to be an actually useful list. I would actually delete all List of xxxan footballers articles for the same reason. A listing scheme for internationally-capped players (e.g.List of Sweden international footballers) is a better way of doing things, as there is an objective and verifiable standard for inclusion. Qwghlm 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I like lists, but Punkmorten made the crucial case in his nomination. This list doesn't have any of the advantages they hold over categories. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The list has no advantage over a category. Hello32020 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LIST and no arguments for deletion being advanced that don't rely on wrong facts. WilyD 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no use whatsoever as we have a category for the players. – Elisson • T • C • 23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't like possibly infinite lists such as these. Far better to use categories. --Angelo 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paulo Benevides

From my experience, two appearances in a community theatre (one character not even named) is not enough to warrant an article. Google gives me nothing on the guy. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm posting it here, just in case I'm missing something because I'm not a theatre geek. Notice how the article was created by Paulopvb (talk • contribs). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. I'm no theatre buff either, but I've had three un-named roles in community theatre productions. The moral of the story is that they don't make anyone notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - add my one major supporting role in community theatre, which is also waaaay below notability standard. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hristo Tsanoff

Delete. I make no comment on whether Mr Tsanoff is notable: he may well be, I hope he is. I merely point out that I cannot verify it: the article cites no references; a google search returns only 228 hits of which his own website is no. 1 and this article is no. 2. The article also gives me no clue why he is considered notable, and neither does it tell me who considers him to be so. RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment A Google search using the Cyrillic alphabet comes up with 269 hits, many appearing to point to the subject's official web site. --Folantin 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete the article does assert notability, and a Google search for "Hristo Tsanoff" would not turn up references that are in Cyrillic. But given his "many international projects" there should be at least some trace of notability in the Latin alphabet. Demiurge 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Notability is asserted but I also was not able to verify the info here: only 32 unique non-Wikipedia GHits, most linking to his official site. Article has been here for exactly one year and has yet to be properly souced. Should be deleted and resubmitted if and when solid references are found. -- Satori Son 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Inadequately referenced, and I couldn't find anything significant when I searched. WMMartin 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep if expanded and cited source VaclavHav 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen power pack

Very dubious invention, see the bunch of related articles on AfD summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry#Strange_set_of_articles.

It's not notable, it's almost surely not working, and it may be intended to support the share price of http:/www.hy-drive.com

Pjacobi 10:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Dubious indeed. Nothing to back up the claims except for its own website. Delete until good sources can be found. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, advertisement probaly. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandal fork of North-East Line with a crazy name. Kimchi.sg 11:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowling Centre MRT Line

There's no such MRT line in the whole of Singapore, blatant hoax, non-notable of course and definitely unverifiable. It's just some fictional stuff created by a new user known as Casper10 (talk • contribs). He has also made links on the main article to this made up line. I wonder how I can really get into this line if it really exists, banging myself against the wall like entering 9¾ to Hogwarts Express? This is just a piece of hoax and nonsense. Strong Delete. Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a hoax and should be deleted. As a Singaporean, I can testify that this line does not exist, and if you find any references to it from the official SMRT site, I will eat my hat. For unconvinced non-Singaporeans, there are 0 Google hits for "bowling centre MRT line". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to gaijin. I've merged the lead, which is written in an encyclopedic style; if anyone wants to merge more they are free to do so from the history. Sandstein 09:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henna gaijin

This is a non-notable neologism (fails WP:N) that isn't even English. Wikipedia is not urbandictionary (sources fail WP:RS). Note that Google hits for this phrase are less than likely to be relevant, as it is just two words run together (or three; this is really hen na, not henna). Dekimasu 11:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Sounds more like a rant (kind of against non-Japanese) than anything else - and as Dekimasu said, Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Gaijin.I've removed the biased rant.--Endroit 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Gaijin. I'm changing my vote, because somebody keeps entering inaccurate information from blogs.--Endroit 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Gaijin - This is a valid term, well supported and referenced, even if the actual article is lacking. However, it could easily be folded into gaijin. MightyAtom 01:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Legit term. Here is proof. -- Crevaner 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a correct google search. You must exclude wikipedia from the search. And upon further inspection, there are 171 unique sites on google that use that term. Google counts 60,900 pages within those 171 sites. Not very overwhelming. This is also a neologism. --Kunzite 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. Neier 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a few comments from the talk page during the deletion vote below. Dekimasu 06:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would merge it with japanophile. LordofHavoc 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree with the merge, although part of me would rather see it removed, because I'm skeptical that the phrase has such a clearly defined idiomatic meaning for the average native-speaking Japanese. It is certainly not a youth subculture, and I don't think you can call it any kind of subculture at all... Djiann 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This isn't really a "culture" or a "stock phrase." It is just a word that means "wierd foreinger" and isn't anything I've heard in use other than as an insult. Should we turn every japanese word or insult into a Wikipedia article? If you want a "culture" article, "Foreigners Living in Japan" might be an appropriate topic. Denaar 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've heard it both ways, both positive and negative. The literal meaning "strange foreigner" ("weird foreigner") happens to be still extant, despite what the cited sources say. But the negativity we detest comes primarily from the word gaijin, and the gaijin article goes into details of that negativity. Hence a merge with gaijin would make better sense than a merge with japanophile. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it were deleted altogether, but that wouldn't do justice to the cited sources.--Endroit 14:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I've just removed the "Japanese subcultures" box from the article.--Endroit 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The recently readded information is quite similar to a copyright violation I removed previously. I would check the main paragraph against hennagaijin.org. (Also, the cited sources aren't really reliable sources, and rather tend to show that it is in fact a less-than-notable neologism). If this article had been written about the website instead of the website's term, for example, it would probably have been speedied. Dekimasu 09:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I would neither merge it with Japanophile because Japanophiles describe the same kind of people living outside of Japan; nor would I merge it with Gaijin because henna gaijin are very different to just normal gaijin, in that gaijin act like the culture of where they are from, whereas henna gaijin act like Japanese people. Therefore it should neither be deleted nor merged, I see it as a legit article.

You should probably point out that you created the article. Dekimasu 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Gaijin, else delete Do not keep seperate. It's a neologism. It's an aspect of "gaijin". The list is also very POV. It also doesn't seem to have enough independant sources to stand on its own. And who would eat natto with relish? --Kunzite 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The "natto with relish" phrase was plagiarized from one of the websites, so don't blame the contributor. Dekimasu 09:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't, it appeared on so many pages. Onur 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Two hits and one of them is the front page of hennagaijin.org. Dekimasu 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

With wording like that, I figured it was pilfered from somewhere. It's in that "You know you're something-or-another if..." that circulate the internet frequently. It really doesn't need to be a seperate article. --Kunzite 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dekimasu's comment, I must say that if you include the ommitted results in the search, and count the number of hits, making sure that you don't count websites that have already appeared before, you'll find six hits, not two.

The other hits are message board postings of the front page of the website. That's why they were filtered. Please sign your comments. Dekimasu 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. People continue to comment on the talk page instead of here. The most recent comment was the following (anonymous): In Japan, if you say "henna gaijin," people will think "weird foreigner" which does not necessarily mean "foreigner who has adapted to Japanese culture." Yeah, maybe someone who has adapted to Japanese culture will be described as "henna gaijin" since it is a rather unusual sight, but that doesn't mean that "henna gaijin" MEANS "adapted to Japanese culture." That's like me saying that "weird old man" is a term for "pedophile" because one could describe a pedophile as a weird old man. Dekimasu 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge as above, word factual YamSan 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, then recreate as a redirect to The Patty Duke Show. --Core desat 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identical cousin

Uverifiable content created by single purpose account Tulkolahten 11:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. This article seems to be a part of original research and seems to be unverified, speculation. Created by a single purpose account Pemeleth (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) few or no other edits outside this topic. Tulkolahten 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Apart from unsourcedness, my basic knowledge of genetics tells me this is nonsense anyway due to genetic recombination. The chance would not just be small but so vanishingly insignificantly small but to be nonexistant. In fact, you would be just as likely if not more to get identical siblings from different fertilisations. Morwen - Talk 12:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Jahangard 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above - or maybe replace with redirect to The Patty Duke Show where identical cousins are a key premise Dl2000 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to The Patty Duke Show. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect Rever e ndG 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark 01:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization

The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This book doesn't look too notable to me. It's got an Amazon rank of 487,511, and a Google search for the title and author yields 505 hits from booksellers, libraries and such. Mostly, the article reads like an advertisement, and the synopsis is a copyvio from Amazon.com, of which WP:NOT a mirror. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. According to the article it's written by a notable person (see lead). Remove the copyvio synopsis. Sales are less relevant when the author is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Is he? Not to say he isn't, but there's no article on Wayne Ellwood, and I'm not quite sure that a book is notable just because the editor of the New Internationalist wrote it. Maybe if we can find some book reviews in reliable sources, per the proposed WP:BK. Sandstein 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as it pretty much says it all. According to the article it's written by a notable person (see lead). yeah let's use the article itself to establish notability. No seriously... we need more proof here and if you remove the copyvio there really isn't much left to begin with anyways. MartinDK 14:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ the author is the editor of a well-known magazine, even if he doesn't yet have a wikipedia entry. Lack of a wikipedia entry is not evidence of lack of notability. Lurker ^oi! 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge per Bwithh Lurker ^oi! 13:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Merge as cut-down mention in new stub The No-Nonsense Guide to... This yet another iteration of the commercial academic publisher's device of a series of short summary guides to serious academic or current affairs topics aimed at people who don't want to do heavy reading (especially lazy students) - see 20 or so books listed in the No-Nonsense series with different authors on Amazon[9] . At least in the UK, this trend seems to have taken off in the 1990s, the formula being inspired by the classic 1975 book Marx for Beginners by the Mexican cartoonist, Rius (This 1975 work was not created as part of a planned series but was quite an original concept: cartoon Marxist theory with comedy moments aimed at educating the masses). Scores, perhaps hundreds if you include the imitator series spawned, of "... for Beginners" books followed[10] with increasingly uneven quality and content. The No-Nonsense series seems to be pretty respectable, but the editorial process would have worked with the series editor commissioning an expert author to write a particular book of the series, and not by the author submitting an original concept manuscript to the publisher. Such books are also typically intended to give overviews of the field rather than original arguments (the author would do well to to save that for a book which is not part of a "beginners" series). So, the No-Nonsense series may warrant an article here (compare the articles for ...For_Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to...), but we don't need an article on every book in the No-nonsense series (a commercially published book is not automatically encyclopedically notable) just as we don't for every one of the ...For Dummies series. IF the author may be somewhat notable in his own right, then create an article for him. Bwithh 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense, and part of your comment would make a good beginning for that stub. I wouldn't object to a merge there. Sandstein 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep, non-vanity book by noted author from a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge w/ Author. Not notable. --Improv 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment (negative) - The publisher Verso Books may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but a claim of notability cannot be made for the author just because their employer is notable enough for one. —72.75.93.131 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, despite sockpuppetry. Not one valid 'keep' vote. Proto::type 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Half-Life mods

Both have been nominated for deletion before. List of Half-Life mods was deleted two weeks ago, while List of Half-Life 2 mods was kept in February. List of Half-Life mods was created anew shortly after its deletion. It was tagged with db-repost, but de-tagged following this comment:

This article is not a repost of the original article, in the AfD it was mentioned that it can be created again "if someone wants to turn it into an acceptable article rather than a directory" (source), also an admin said "this needs to be changed significantly before it is reposted" (source), which I have done - it is changed significantly. Please compare with the original article. And excuse me if I haven't listed every notable mod already, that's why it's a stub plus I only had a few hours time. --Pizzahut2 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am opening this discussion in order to achieve a consensus once and for all; should these articles be retained? Both articles, especially List of Half-Life 2 mods still looks more or less like a directory (which Wikipedia is not). Punkmorten 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- - Note: The AfD template on the List of HL2 mods page was vandalized. It's been reverted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 12:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article still doesn't address the notability of mods, which I believe to be non-existent. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge the notable (i.e. blue-linked) mods into the respective game articles (if they're not mentioned there already; both articles have "Mods" sections). Demiurge 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Should this AfD go through, I guess it's only fair to also have a look at the other mod lists: List of Battlefield 1942 mods, List of Call of Duty mods, List of Grand Theft Auto multiplayer mods --Pizzahut2 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reply I tagged the Battlefield and CoD with notability and unsourced tags and prodded the GTA page. The Kinslayer 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft, whatever useful information in these lists, merge it into somewhere suitable. WP:NOT a directory applies here too. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, it can be used as a very useful reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderpower (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, not only was the HL2 mod list nominated for deletion earlier and unanimously kept, it is very useful and is not a directory. As well, it's just like Pizzahut 2 said: Go look at other mod lists and delete them all before deleting this one. User:CPTGbr 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete and merge per Demiurge. Other mod lists should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep both, useful lists. VegaDark 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep both, very useful list. Gives a better view of the original game by showing some 3rd party work that was made for them. Snewerl 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edgecution 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, I'm with Thunderpower. Very useful reference. It's not a directory, it's the best way to place the numerous mods for HL2 into an article without giving each individual mod an article. Chef Brian 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Both - These lists have always been an important reference for me, and some other members of the internet public that I know. One single point we can come to, read about the latest releases, publicly made up to date by Wiki submitters. Sure, I agree that there should perhaps be more links to smaller articles about the individual mods, however, how would we then know what to search for without this resource. --JamminR 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — JamminR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep As above, very useful reference page, best way to keep mods without merging into HL2 itself. DannyB!! 12:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
keep, although like any list it should include only encyclopedic (that is, notable) mods. There are plenty of those to populate the list, however. — brighterorange (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
delete and merge Mods of true note should have either their own page (a la counter-strike) or shouldn't exist - bare in mind I've worked on the HL2 mods page a little bit so I'm actually voting to remove some of my own efforts. Shan 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Both are good lists, both are valid forks of the main articles, both contain notable content. --- RockMFR 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the precedent of deleting the List of Half-Life mods. The Kinslayer 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep since more than one of those mods became commercially produced games, and one of those became the most popular online game I believe that it belongs. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

- Yes, because a couple of the mods on the list are big, we should definitly have a huge unmanageabvle list of every mod for HL2 with no limits on who can put their 2-bit never-to-be-finished mod on it. (Irony over.) Seriously, if the mod is big, then people will look for it's article directly, and if the game isn't that big, and doesn't have an article, it should not be included on an indiscriminate list as who would be looking for further information on something they never heard of? And as always, the 'if X and Y have an article then E, H and Z should be mentioned' arguement doesn't hold water. The Kinslayer 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

- Yes, but the problem is that every time we add a page for a mod that is notable someone post a adf and since there will be always someone that disagres they end up deleted even if we post prof of the notability (there will be always some Admin that disagres and it will delete it) Snewerl 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

- It's not an indiscriminate list, the List of Half-Life mods at least only has mods which either gained awards, made it to the Mod Of The Year feature or have their own article. It's easy to change the List of Half-Life 2 mods the same way, infact it's been done already. --Pizzahut2 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and now that list has only 6 games, 2 with articles, and at least 3 of the others are notable enough to have articles that would be kept, therefore the list is serving no useful purpose because the mods are big enough that people would be looking for the articles directly without the need of the list. The Kinslayer 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There already have been articles about some of the mods in the past, and they have been deleted. Not only Azure Sheep [11], but Sven-cop, too. [12] Snewerl has a point. --Pizzahut2 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Azure Sheep was only deleted because no-one removed the prod from it, which is lot different from an AfD. As for Sven, I don't quite follow that one. It was AfD, then recreated a month later following an appeal, then promptly deleted 5 minutes later by the same guy? What does he mean by 'userfied'? The Kinslayer 11:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Userfy is what admins do if there is a request to copy a deleted article to a personal (user) page, like this one. Point of View was also deleted. ~~[13]~~ [14] --Pizzahut2 11:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, thanks for that. The way I see it, a lot of Mods were caught off-guard with that purge a couple of months back and had their pages deleted, but I'm sure that mods like sven could re-create their pages and have them kept, as long as they made sure they paid special attention to establishing notability and providing sources. But I guess we are deviating from the point of this discussion a bit now! The Kinslayer 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Azure Sheep had at least a review in a computer magazine and other stuff that was reason for notability (not sure what you mean as prod). Point of View had a award from ModDB and other stuff that also were reason for notability. They got deleted just the same. As I said before there will be always some Admin that disagres and it will delete it. Snewerl 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Moving indent back a a bit) A prod is when someone puts up a tag saying they believe the article should be deleted. If the tag is left untouched for 5 days, the article is deleted without a second thought. This was what happened to Azure Sheep. All that was needed was someone to remove the Prod tag and the article wouldn't have been deleted, although most contested prods usually end up becomming AfDs, but at least people would have had a chance to argue their point. And whether an article is deleted or not is never down to just the admin. All the admin does is look at the arguements and have to decide which side makes the better arguement, and even then there is various appeals processes for people who disagree with a decision. The Kinslayer 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I admit it's somewhat useless information for some people, but for people who search for a big reference list of Half-Life 2 mods it is very useful. I myself have found some of the best mods/mods in making I know here. It does need some work, maybe a re-do or just dust off a bit of trash, but a definive "Keep" in my opinion. BurstFire 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This is the thing, the arguement that this be deleted is that WP:NOT indiscriminate information, a repository of links or an online directory, but so far the only argument to keep it is 'But I've found this list useful' which I don't really think is a convincing enough arguement for us to ignore a wiki policy (several parts of that poilicy to boot.) The Kinslayer 11:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete and merge per Demiurge, however also merge the mods which don't have their own article. (They still have some notability, as they've either got awards or appear in Mod DB's Mod Of The Year feature.) --Pizzahut2 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment As a developer of SourceForts, I feel that some may find my opinion on this AfD biased, so I'll refrain from "voting," but I find this article useful and think it should be kept. - 71.233.96.192 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm probably also biased as recreator / main contributor. How I can be biased when I voted delete? Because I wasted too much time and energy in this. I guess I'm a bit burned out. --Pizzahut2 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I personally don't see a problem with a bias as long as a person states the fact but can still provide a level-headed arguement to back up their point of view. (I mean, you could say I'm biased as a non-contributor to this article really.) The Kinslayer 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Mods. Herostratus 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced to change to a keep by this award-winning arguement. <endirony> The Kinslayer 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Deleting this lists practically destroys several pages of useful information on WikiPedia to Half-Life players.WaltCip 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How? Deleting the lists isn't getting rid of any the articles mentioned in the lists. So it's actually two pages not several. The Kinslayer 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable LiveJournal users

Listcruft. Some (though by no means all) of those on the list have evidence to support their 'notability', but the real question is why should we have such a list at all? It has no particular value in and of itself, and (since it is not included in the main article) does not serve to assist in asserting the 'notability' of LiveJournal itself (not that it is needed for the latter purpose anyway) Cynical 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What's next, "List of bands with a MySpace"? Let's not even go there. MER-C 12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There have been multiple people asking if there's any famous Wikipedians. It stands to reason that people have the same interest on other websites. LiveJournal is notable and as long as the individuals discussed can be shown to be notable themselves, I see no reason to delete it. It serves a need. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Anything containing the word "notable" in the title automatically falls foul of POV issues. Who decides these are notable? As such, this is unmaintainable in any realistic or encyclopaedic form. Grutness...wha? 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of the word notable in the title is probably an attempt to avoid the spam that would occur in a list called "List of LiveJournal users". It's nothing a renaming couldn't fix. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: would it be better renamed as "List of LiveJournal users with Wikipedia articles"? That precondition means that all persons on the page would have to pass WP:BIO and therefore satisfy notability. Vizjim 13:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to stay away from self-reference Just remove the notable from the title. People need to be notable to be included on a list by definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep Appears to have been created as a fork from Livejournal under WP:SUMMARY. Remove "notable" from the article name (it's a tautology) and prune it down to just those people with Wikipedia articles of their own. (In answer to Grutness, the existence of a Wikipedia article on someone is prima facie evidence of notability.) Demiurge 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and MER-C. Yeah let's make a list of people just for the fun of it and then throw in a criterion like notable user of LiveJournal. What could possibly go wrong? <--- insert sarcasm ---> MartinDK 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep: I want to keep it mainly becuase it can be interesting. Though I don't think that that is a good reason for it to be of any use in an encyclopedia. Shamess 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia decides everyday whether or not a person is notable enough for an article here. If they have an article here, or COULD have an article here they can be kept on the list. Perhaps a name change, or cleanup is in order, but the list has value.--Crossmr 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Livejournal is clearly a notable site. Some of its notability comes from the notable people using it, or from the notable events that have come from it. Thus it is useful for Wikipedia to have that information. There's no vandalism that I could see on this page, no content concerns at all really. At the worst, rename it to something other than notable LJ users, even though I think that's unnecessary to change, I won't object. Mister.Manticore 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete we don't need this article. At all...--SonicChao ^talk 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why?- Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Looking at the article, I don't agree that this can be categorised as "listcruft". The article is of a decent size (not too big, not too small), is well annotated elevating it above the normal "just a list" articles so despised on Wikipedia, certainly verifiable using the external links, and actually quite interesting. It's also a bit ironic that some Wikipedians are saying "classification as notable is NPOV"... on AfD no less! --Canley 16:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mr. Manticore and Canley. For the record, I think LiveJournal is a waste of everyone's time, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing its notability and the list's usefulness. Chubbles1212 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This list basically consists of original research and is inherently non-neutral; it doesn't belong here. If people really want to know this information, then I'm sure someone could easily do it on Livejournal.com. This isn't the place to find out if your favourite celeb or online hero has a Livejournal. --Wafulz 18:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please tell me how finding that somebody has a Livejournal account is original research. Then tell me what neutrality principles are being violated. Mister.Manticore 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding out if someone is notable is not original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe going out and trying to find out if a figure on Wikipedia has a Livejournal does consist of original research on some level. I don't mean guys like Billy Corrigan; smaller figures, such as minor entertainers or politicians who have a blog, might not want others knowing about them and having them linked from this article. If we take WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, which is an official policy, into account, then unless the user is famous for their Livejournal, I see absolutely no purpose in listing its existence. Given that there really aren't that many people who are famous solely for LiveJournal, I think they could be included in the main article.

If we decide to begin including every Wikipedia figure on this list, then we will eventually run into problems with verifiability (ie which blogs are real). As the list grows, there will also be a problem within what "belongs" without violating WP:BLP, which ends up being decidedly non-neutral. As far as I see, this list is just an arbitrary listing of factoids. If the user is notable for their LiveJournal, mention it in the main article. I certainly wouldn't want to see List of MySpace users. --Wafulz 05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "original research" with "looking something up" or "reporting a known fact" . They are quite different. The prohibition against original research is against theories and ideas, not so much against facts (though there are facts that might qualify, this isn't one of them). So, you check to see if somebody famous has a livejournal. That's just "research" and is no different than say, watching a movie, noting who is in it, and putting that information on Wikipedia. Your concerns about privacy are not something that can be addressed here. If a famous person doesn't want their livejournal known to the public at large, they should consider using LJ's privacy features. Besides, that would be more of an individual problem than an article one. Given that as far as I know, none of the famous people listed in this article have tried to hide their livejournal (in fact, several of them link to it from their official websites), I don't see it as an immediate concern. Can't understand why you even begin to suggest including every Wikipedia figure on this list, that would seem to be odd. And I don't know about you, but I could get behind a List of Famous people who use Myspace or some such list. Mister.Manticore 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that it will eventually lead to sleuthing to find LiveJournals. Personally, I wouldn't mind having a list of people who are famous for their LiveJournals- the problem is that this list would be so short that it would be better off in a main article. In my opinion, having a list like this is pretty much the same as having a list of famous people who drive BMWs, or a list of famous people who like toast. Yeah some people might find it interesting, but it's just so trivial. --Wafulz 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous people are already searched for, in all sorts of ways and places. If you think Wikipedia is a major factor in that, you might as well be arguing for the deletion of any article on a living person. Yeah, there are things we need to watch out for (like personal phone numbers, addresses (though there are exceptions to this, like Neverland Ranch and Bill Gate's House) and emails ), but if someone puts their livejournal up publically, and it is found out about, deleting it is iffy, though we could do it if requested and they took obvious steps to make it private. To you, this may be like a list of famous people who drive BMWs, but perhaps you might want to look at lists of people. There's a fair number of lists in there which I would regard as more important than this. At least, until everybody and their brother gets a livejournal account. In which case, this list could indeed be deleted, and replaced with a list of folks without one. Mister.Manticore 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're making a bit of a stretch there by equating my position on this article to my position on every biography article we have. The only thing I'm concerned about privacy-wise is that it creates the possibility for editors to go out and find LiveJournals that haven't been declared publicly. Regarding the "lists of people article": The way I see this is list is it's just completely arbitrary in what the criteria for inclusion is, and it's essentially trivial information. This doesn't touch on the fact that it acts as a directory of famous peoples' LiveJournals too by simply listing their name, profession, and URL. I can't see List of people with websites being any different. --Wafulz 22:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being unclear, but I trying to point out that you could potentially make the same argument about having biographical information about any living person. You can't make a broad statement that it could be a problem and blindly act on that, you have to make the decision on the individual case. If people want to go out and find non-public livejournals, I doubt they'll be inspired by Wikipedia. They'll do it, because they want to do it any way. Not because they want to put some information on Wikipedia. Even if they did, deleting this article would't help, they could still put it on the individual person's article. That's why I don't find that aspect of your argument convincing. Taken to its logical conclusion, it produces something absurd. Even if you limit it to just concerns about livejournals, it doesn't work too well. There are many celebs who publicize their livejournals. As such, including them would be appropriate. If there are any that request privacy, again, I say the first burden is on them to just Livejournal's privacy tools. If for some reason that doesn't work, then we can see about it when that does happen, on an individual scale. Mister.Manticore 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Now as for the second part, that's much more of an argument. Indeed, I don't think an article of lists of people with websites would be workable. That's too broad a category. Though I think this is a useful category Category:Celebrities who personally authored their official sites. Now Livejournal is a website, but it's a subset that is reasonably particular. Currently. For example, if you look at the lists of people, of similar content. Take a good honest look at it, and all the sublists. Like List of celebrity guest stars on Sesame Street. Perhaps one day that'll change, but not so far. Mister.Manticore 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, because I think I'm notable enough to be included on that list. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Mr. Manticore and Canley, such a list can have added value and be well maintained, when limited to people who already have articles.-- danntm ^T _C 03:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mister.Manticore. Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- Upon first reading the debate, I was gonna say Speedy Delete easily, due to POV issues. But, I think the articles name needs to be changed. "List of notable LiveJournal users" implies people who are famous for having LJs. How about "List of notable people who have LiveJournals" or something similiar. The latter is more descriptive of what the article is. JPG-GR 05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't want to end up seeing List of Famous MySpace users or List of Famous Facebook Users. Rever e ndG 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge back into main LiveJournal article. And neither the existence of a List of Famous MySpace users or List of Famous Facebook Users would bother me if there were enough of either to make an article appropriate. Davidkevin 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Is this less notable than the considerable number of lists of people associated with a particular town or university? GabrielF 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Too vague. Yankee Rajput 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Grutness. WMMartin 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the Polish Wikipedia guys also deleted it, and they would know better than us. Proto::type 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wojciech Plocharski

does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) test, candidate for deletion in Polish Wikipedia http://neptun-gdansk.w.interia.pl/wyw_z_wp.html.
His name is misspelled: should be Płocharski, not Plocharski.
Julo 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misspellings like this are understandable. Probably someone who doesn't know hwo to use diacratics. Mistitlings are fixable. They don't need to be listed in AFD nominations. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Badly written, small article. Really just a waste of space. Matthewbarnard 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

very good, short and simple. not boring. he's not a member of an academy of sciences what is original here.

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Powers (poet)

Non-notable author, "references" cited are a short Amazon blurb and what effectively amounts to a blog. Cannot find any substantial mention with a Google search. Seraphimblade 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

delete: no way near notable enough, and might discourage users from creating articles about the far more notable baseball player with the same name. yandman 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:VSCA. WTF is a 'slammaster', anyway? The Crying Orc 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it refers to slam poetry. Not my cup of tea, but yeah, it exists. --Wafulz 05:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Question: Not saying I oppose the deletion, but why would anyone want to create an article about a baseball player at John Powers (poet)? Wouldn't John Powers or John Powers (baseball player) be a better choice? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And that was at 3 in the afternoon... I think it's time I tried sleep. Bonne nuit. yandman 22:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unless he happens to be the brother of the more famous Austin. WMMartin 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, enough of this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daring Armstrong

Non-notable, article created by the author of the series, prod removed by a single purpose account. Google search only brings up wikipedia and youtube. yandman 14:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch out, socks about... yandman 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Delete for failure to assert any notability, and for lack of sources. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete per nomination - very poorly written, and so far has no real assertion of notability. Also, unnecessarily mysterious, saying "This mystery has yet to be revealed." –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I don't believe this page should be deleted. I am a fan of the show and I know for a pure FACT the page was not made by the creator of the show. You can't have looked very far on a google search then could you considering there are several pages dedicated to thsi paticular show. — Happy days1223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: I am not the shows creator I just have my user name as Matthew barnard's name because I am a big fan of his work whether it be Daring Armstrong or The Matthew Barnard Show. I agree with someone else who posted in the Daring Armstrong discussion page saying there are lots more worse things on Wikipedia than shows that actually exist. — Matthewbarnard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: I don't believe this to be deleted either. As another fan of the show it seems almost uneccessary. As for Diablo saying there are no references sources well all of the information is described within the show if you actually bothered to watch it. You guys should really do your own research before making accusations. — Thegreatllama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: this isn't a vote, so there's little point in sock/meatpuppeting. yandman 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources are suppposed to be reliable and by a third party. Sure, a few details can be sourced to episodes, but the basics and the main part of the article needs to be veriable by written sources (books, magazines, websites, etc) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:V all across the board. WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep rationale. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: So if the article supplies its references will it still be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatllama (talk • contribs) .
Keep: I see no reason it should be deleted. As a fan I know alot of this information is true if not flawed in places but with a little work and some references it should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.176.254 (talk • contribs) .
Keep: I believe this should be kept and I agree with the above user on this one. Sircoops123 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I think this should be kept because everyone should know about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leemon (talk • contribs) .
Delete with a huge sledge hammer because no-one should know about it. My brain is smaller for having learned about it. It gave me Ebola and AIDS. My computer is slowly self-formatting to remove the cache file as if it were a cancer. PURGE THIS HERESY FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH BEFORE IT BRINGS ABOUT THE COMING APOCALYPSE! Oh, and per nom. ArmAndLeg 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable vanity page. Stx 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: As producer of the featured cartoon, I am glad my work has been recognised, and I'm happy with the content of the page. My work has not been misrepresented or slandered, and most of the information is true. I'm glad my audience appreciate my work enough to give other people some info on my (rather disjointed) sense of humour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.188.241 (talk • contribs)..

As stated above, this isn't a vote, so there's no point saying "keep" without adressing the issues raised, to whit: This is a non-notable comic. "I am glad my work has been recognised" sums up the problem here. I have no doubt your audience love your (excellent, by the way) comic, but we're an encyclopaedia. yandman 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An issue has been raised by Yandman as well. The wikipedia article does not even mention the Daring Armstrong comic that inspired the internet animated show80.225.118.82 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious delete Hell, it probably should have been speedied. Two-episode YouTube "series". Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, and just about anything you can throw at it. Sockpuppet attempts are truely pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. User:Matthewbarnard tried to remove this comment. When this is through, could we have a block of all these socks? yandman 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete because there are no references, the article gives out false information and the show has had only two episodes and minimal success. Don't get me wrong I am a fan of Daring Armstrong but I know for a fact that all of this information has been cooked up by some obsessed fan. Debaser23 09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page had been tagged as such. Robdurbar 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Football Zone

Non-notable football discussion board, article mainly details the non-notable administrators of the site ChrisTheDude 14:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable forum. yandman 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British International School of Cracow

Non-notable private school in Poland. This article was speedied several times in its early days, but that was because it was a copyright violation.

The reason why this version should be deleted is that all that we know about this school points to it being non-notable. It is not the only school offering the IB in Poland (see list here), and not the only one to offer a British curriculum and exam options (there's also a British International School in ~~Prague~~ Warsaw). The only source I cited that mentioned the school in detail is not an independent source, but says that "the information comes from the schools themselves". Hence delete for lack of detailed mentions in multiple indepdendent reliable sources. Kimchi.sg 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Small, non-notable private school. AJMS pretty much gives the best possible rationale above. -- Kicking222 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I do not agree. The school is unique in Cracow as a school offering IB Diploma and GCSE options. The comment about Prague is irrelevant as Prague is not in Poland. I have added the reference to the school at the Council of International Schools to the page, which provides independent verified information on the school83.7.162.78 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Keep - agree with above Albatross2147 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But these are not my main reasons for not deleting it - many schools have an entry of their own in Wikipedia. This school is just as unique as those, so why should it be excluded on these grounds?

- Comment: There's also a British School in Warsaw... so my comment about "Prague" is still relevant. Maybe this is the only such school in Cracow, but this fact would only mean it is notable within the city. The existance of the school was already verifiable before you added the link - the IB organisation's entry shows that the school exists - but does not show how it is notable. Kimchi.sg 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The schools offering the IB Diploma Programme, together with the accreditation required to offer the full English National Curriculum and earn top school-leaving certificates, constitutes a unique program in compliance with WP:SCHOOL's "substantial and unique program" standard. That another school in Warsaw offers some of the same course material is irrelevant in a country of 40 million people in over 120,000 square miles. Lack of web-based, clickable independent media coverage is disappointing, but is not surprising given the school's location. Alansohn 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The entry provides important factual information for interested parties e.g students in other international schools, hence contributing to a global pool of information that is user content generated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndreasHuntley (talk • contribs).- the article creator

Assume good faith but Albatross2147 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per a rather unique set of programs, including the IB Diploma Programme and offering mother-tongue classes in four languages. -- Kicking222 14:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete While Alan makes a good argument, I'm unable to find non-trivial coverage in either English or Polish concerning the school's program. Therefore, it is hard to see it as notable. JoshuaZ 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please it is notable by the unique set of programs it offers and verifiable too Yuckfoo 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Uniqueness per se is not notable. I'm unique, but I'm not notable. ( Sigh... ) WMMartin 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $10

~~We don't need such lists. It can produce more confusion creating wrong wikilink, because they are not more redlink. Cate 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~~

From discussion, it seems that such list can be usefull, anyway I propose move as my comment below. Cate 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages: $20, $5, $2 and $2 bill. Cate 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, no good reason to delete offered, and the most likely result if deleted would be someone moving United States ten-dollar bill there or redirecting this there, resulting in a reduction of global accessibility. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, informative, do not violate any policies, therefore do not merit deletion. riana_dzasta 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Useful disambig. No reason to delete. Mister.Manticore 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Slightly likely to be used as a search term, so there should be a disambig page Lurker ^oi! 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep all per above comments. Otto4711 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, useful dab page. Also, this reminds me about my "make disambiguation links green somehow" plan. Morwen - Talk 16:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep all as per Morwen (and second the green disambiguation links as well!) - fchd 19:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but maybe move to $10 (disambiguation) etc instead. Hut 8.5 20:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep excellent article. WilyD 22:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Provisional VERY weak keep, provided we stick to articles which actually are about ten dollar bills. Otherwise it's pretty much a copy of a Dollar disambiguation page (International dollar). We don't need such a page for every possible amount of cash. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This, and the $20, $5, $2 pages were redirects to the corresponding US dollar denominations. (I haven't gotten to $50 and $100 or any others yet). I changed them to be more inclusive... there is more than 1 type of "$10" in the world. However, most of the items in the list are links to the general currency article, as most currencies don't have an article for each denomination. (Generally, only the US, Canadian and Australian dollars have denomination-specific articles) Is this overkill, or is it only neccessary to link to denominations that actually have an article written about them, such as in $2 bill? Rawr 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems a very good idea to have this as a dab page - and all the others mentioned by Rawr. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, good as a dab page. People do not only look for 10 USD, they can look for any currency they want to. So from here, they can see the list and click on the article of that particular currency they want to look at. We are an encyclopedia, and it must have a broad geographical scope and not just on one country. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, although the closing admin should probably consider moving the page to Ten-dollar bill or List of ten-dollar bills, and similarly for corresponding pages. theProject 06:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - If there is going to be a redirect, Ten dollar banknote or something like that would be more internationally appropriate. - fchd 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Agreed - "bill" is a specifically US-centric term for banknotes. But since this list also includes $10 coins, either name is inappropriate. FWIW< I've expanded the names of the currencies to make things a bit clearer, and also replaced the word "bill" with "note" where the former is inappropriate. Grutness...wha? 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. No pages link to these articles. I don't think it is a good dab page (no article point to these pages, and I don't think users will search for '$10'). But I agree to move the page as a list of banknotes. Cate 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - It would be a strange term to search for from my perspective, but if you integrate over all users of the internet, I'm sure it comes up surprisingly often. WilyD 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is a ridiculous page with no usefulness. Rever e ndG 00:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This does provide quite useful information on the currency on 1o dollar bills. Maybe a little cleanup and add a little description to each 10 dollar bills.--PrestonH 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons above. --Bobak 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 11:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCSX

Emulator that does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE inclusion criteria, or be notable, or have reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. PCSX was one of the premiere Playstation emulators, along with Bleem. It was the starting point for the PCSX2 project. If PCSX isn't notable, PCSX2 (the only current Playstation 2 emulation project) should be nominated also. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not asserting notability. I'm not sure if it's possible to objectively assess whether something is "premiere". I don't see how the deletion of this article would automatically make PCSX2 non-notable, but feel free to nominate it and we'll discuss it. Demiurge 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep If you delete this article then you might aswell shove every other noteable emulator article into the chopping block.Atirage 07:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I wouldn't be totally against merging it into the PCSX2 article (which is definitely notable), but it shoudn't be deleted. —SirPavlova 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's an interesting project. - Brian Kendig 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not a single source anywhere to indicate its notability or verify any of the claims in the article. Hbdragon88 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: since the PCSX2 probably emulates the PSX as well, isn't this just an earlier build of sorts like NO$GB (which became NO$GBA) and Kega (which became Kega Fusion)? If so, just redirect it there. Garrett^Talk 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Per Garrett. The Kinslayer 09:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dark Shikari. While I agree this article could use work, and should possibly be marked as a stub, PCSX is definitely a notable piece of software. Significant development, use, and availability (it is, to my knowledge, the only significantly compatible PS emulator that runs under OS X for example). A quick web search also reveals reviews and other media coverage, which all add support to its notability (per WP:SOFTWARE). From wiki deletion policy, "articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing", so even if it needs work, I disagree with deleting it. At most, I would vote for a weak merge with PCSX2, perhaps in a "history section", if no one steps forward after a reasonable time to further edit this article. However, I think it is capable of supporting its own article. xoa 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation of [15]. Metros232 16:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arutam

Reads like a magazine article - author seems to be testing it on Wikipedia ("More to follows, if this article is accepted by the editor... time permiting"). riana_dzasta 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original research ... discospinster _talk 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Userfy if only because I can't understand the article well enough to figure out if there's anything that can possibly be pulled from it. Otherwise, delete. Mister.Manticore 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, did some digging, copyvio from here. Marking as such. Close AfD? riana_dzasta 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolores morcillo

Was deleted on prod per rationale "Questionable notability, unreferenced, likely failure of WP:BIO". Prod was contested after deletion by creator, Dolo 1953 (talk • contribs), who is an SPA and admits to a conflict of interest on my talk page. This nomination is procedural, so I abstain. - crz crztalk 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete...as per WP:BIO. --SonicChao ^talk 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you want to delete it. Dolores Morcillo is a well-known painter. There is NO commercial purpose here. Julesbe84. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolo 1953 (talk • contribs) .
- It would help in this debate if you provided articles/books/other published works about this person, so we could guage her notability. - crz crztalk 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Agreed. Sauce or delete. Actually I think it may even qualify for A7 for no assertion of notability. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - It used to assert, until Dolo disemboweled it a little. No gratitude - I undeleted and gave detailed guidance, and she went and removed the AfD tag... - crz crztalk 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Jamie T. I've merged the lead and would recommend against merging the tracklists also. Sandstein 09:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panic prevention disco

An article about a mixtape that a musician used to give out at gigs. While the musician is (barely) notable enough to warrant an article, these tapes are not. Speedy deletion tags repeatedly removed by the author of the article. No mention of these tapes could be found in any reliable sources (The only sources given are "community" sites) yandman 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect One review, a mention of the tapes being given out, I don't think these references demonstrate this tape is notable. Some of the content is salvagable if moved to the Jamie T article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Jamie T on the very slight chance that someone might search for it. Otto4711 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Ok, few things you have got wrong: "Barely notable?", If you haven't heard of a fairly popular UK charting artist have the decency to admit it rather than making out he is extremely obscure. The tapes are still handed out at gigs and are fairly important to those researching this upcoming musician. Yes its a cult thing, but it seems if we left things up to you, we would only have articles on U2 and some other bland mainstream rubbish. Another thing, is it really worth all this hassle? i see nothing wrong with it being seperate. it definately doesn't merit this kind of arrogant fuss that comes from wiki-superiors and general meddlers. Your ignorance is notable--Joeshawuk 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) — Joeshawuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Lay off the personal attacks, please. What position exactly did these mix tapes reach in the charts? This isn't about the notability of the musician, whoever he is. It's about the notability of the tapes. They're mentioned in the Jamie article, and you can expand that section of the article (and if you feel like it, write a whole chapter on them). However, they don't deserve their own article. yandman 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, while I see you are arguing that it should be kept, what do you think about the option of the verifiable and on topic portions of this article being merged into Jamie T? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect for the reasons already given, and the fact that they are mix tapes - there is nothing particularly notable about unpublished third-party compilations. :: Princess Tiswas 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I was just searching for it when i noticed you were going to delete it. This information is valuable for anyone who needs information on UK pop culture. 11:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, so there's no point spamming, Joe. yandman 11:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there can be 50 votes, but if they do not take policy into account they are meaningless. Can you address the concerns we have brought up instead? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where i have been spamming, please explain this. I did not post the above keep message, you can check the IPs if you like. I am not insulting you by calling you ignorant, it is a fact, you have no idea who this artist is and his importance so your opinion is completely irrelevant, yandman.--Joeshawuk 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I was trying to tell the anon contributor that he needed to argue in line with our policy in order to be effective here, I did not mean to imply any wrongdoing by you or the anon. However the comment above mine could be construed in such a manner.

The burden of proof for demonstrating notability lies on the parties wishing to keep the content. The parties wishing to remove the content simple need to demonstrate that no evidence has been given. After all, it is very hard to prove something is not famous.

What do you think about the idea of merging this content into Jamie T Joe? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

to be honest i think once i've finished the article it would be too big to put into the jamie t article and not overshadow it. I see absolutely no problem with keeping it seperate.--Joeshawuk 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well if you directed us to the sources you plan to use in this article it might help. What sort of previously published material are going to use? If any of this shows these tapes to be notable then things may change here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have actually cited some sources on the page, along with those i am using

I would like to add that the mixtapes are very relevant because it is a large part of the artists success and why there was so much hype from magazines like NME. It has itself resulted in a boom in mixtapes amongst the independent music scene in the UK, from just normal kids, to other bands etc. Since this artist has an album out in january and is predicted by prominent mainstream faces of the UK music scene like NME and Zane Lowe of being a massive success i think it is important to anyone researching him. He is also signed to Virgin records, just to give you an idea of the scale.--Joeshawuk 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

From the links that you have provided:

1) drownedinsound - interview with artist's manangement team with a splash of hyperbole
2) factmagazine - tells us that he makes mix tapes. This was not disputed
3) canvasmag - informs us that there are mixtapes. Again - This is not disputed.
4) jamie-t - the artists own site. This counts as self referential citation.

These links don't appear to do anything that supports your case. If you can cite evidence to support your claims (re: NME hype, the mixtape boom) then there might be something worthwhile. In the meantime, wikipedia is not a primary source of information - for anybody researching the artist, or his work, it is a starting point that collates sourcesm but doesn't make any conclusions itself. Princess Tiswas 12:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

no offence, but cheer up you miserable bastards! i no longer care what you do as you are never going to be particularly pleased. go and savage my article like a pack of vulturesit seems you are all out to decimate any articles made on here, surely wikipedia thrives on expansion. i will not contribute again, this is completely PATHETIC.--Joeshawuk 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. When the Great Final List of Non-Notability is prepared, this will definitely be included. WMMartin 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although I expect it'll swing through here again at some point. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal vanishing

blatant WP:NOR violation ➥the Epopt 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

History: The article was proposed for deletion and deletion was endorsed by at least one other editor, and the tags remained untouched for five full days, but after deletion an editor claimed that objections were recorded on the Talk page. I still can't find those objections, but I undeleted the article and listed it here.
- Article has been extensively rewritten to eliminate most if not all OR, changing nominator's opinion on deletion to no opinion. Closing admin should discount all comments made before the rewrite ➥the Epopt 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - does not appear (heh) to be a term in common usage amongst parapsychologists (23 ghits, many of which are Wikipedia), possibly a neologism. Otto4711 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bollocks, and apparently not even a recognised type of bollocks at that. While the 'phenomenon' might be documented (although hardly reliably), the article smacks of original research. The Crying Orc 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Paranormal Vanishing talk Page

Against: but only if a lot more work is done to bring the page up to scratch. perfectblue 08:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Against: paranormal vanishing shows its own characteristics and therefore the article should be kept! 89.49.87.130
Against: as above, and also that the stories of disappearances, even when refuted, keep recurring in new forms; looks like a form of folklore, and so notable on that basis. Totnesmartin 14:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The objections were placed on the pages talk page and have since been moved here. Original dates and user names have been preserved. perfectblue 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Whpq 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or maybe Categorize. A category might be helpful where an article would just be OR. -- Deleuze 21:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete per nominator. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Provided sources are added, I see no reason to delete this. I have a nice book that could help add to it. There's no doubt gonna be people who find anything remotely paranormal unreliable. The fact is, whether it's true or not, it has been documented. I just think this personal was trying for a legitimate article. Disappearances that have been attributed to a paranormal cause just isn't a good title. I don't think the title is to promote a neologism, it's just an attempt at a short descriptive title. If I get the chance, I'd like to have a go at fixing this. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete see WP:NOR Wikipediarul e s 2221 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: neologism: please see WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-written

This page has been re-written into a more structured version using clear citations and modified examples. Specifically, OR has been replaced with (all be it unbalanced) views from WP:V sources. It's not perfect by a long shot (WP:V against still needs to be added), but it provides a starting point from which a wiki-appropriate article could be written.

Please check and reaffirm/change votes based on the new version rather than the old version.

perfectblue 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: For the same reasons cited above. Sure, you have sources, but the sources also state that they really fall into the fourth dimension as a possible theory. Methinks they are not reliable. Also, a lot of the article seems to be about a single case that was fake. --CF90 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The articles been re-written, POV and OR are removed, and multiple non-tivial reliable, verifiable independent sources of information have been added. I think that covers all potential ~~whinging~~ concerns over the articles quality. DarkSaber2k 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

n

Keep Much has been made from the deletion side about "paranormal vanishing" being a neologism. And while this might, in a sense, be true, it only means that there is a difficulty in categorisation in this case. It says nothing about the subject of the article itself which is fairly well known and is certainly not new. The whole notion of paranormal vanishings or disapperances, of people(temporary or permanent), and sometimes of things, has a very long and solid tradition in folklore and, with the new arrival of, e.g., the alien abduction phenomenon, it seems to be firmly embedded in the modern world as well. The point, then, is that the problem here is merely one of what to call the article so that people can find it; the subject itself, on the other hand, surely meets all the criteria to warrant an article.Davkal 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The article needs work but is has some valid information, it should be improved further not deleted. - Solar 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Needs work, but is a valid topic. perfectblue 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - i will have a go at it tomorrow, and redirect to a new title, and include 'disappearance stories' not simply as phenomena but as folklore ("strange disappearances" is a better title - a websearch turned lots of relevant returns, so that's a better title to go with.) (personal comment: why didn't anyone read the article's discussion page, where there was a consensus building up that it should be 'kept but improved'?) Totnesmartin 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Much better since the recent flurry of rewrites. Needs more work, but it's a valid subject. --Careax 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I think the concept is one that is not in use among paranormal investigators, and thus can only be useful for categorization. Nobody writes about "paranormal vanishings" en toto, but specific ones may exist. Deleuze 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Try Vanishings by Michael Harrison and Into Thin air by Paul Begg. Both 80s books,but there may be more recent ones. Totnesmartin 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Week Keep per Deleuze's reasoning and Totnesmartin's counter-argument. I truly think that the subject is a bit to ad hoc... but it's got books written about it, so why not? A new title would be nice... how about "Unexplained vanishings" or something? ---J.S (t|c) 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there's general agreement the "paranormal vanishing" is a crap title, but no consensus on a suitable replacement. Yet. "Strange disappearances" is my own fave... see the discussion on the talk page. Totnesmartin 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I just wandered by for the first time and it seems acceptable. Needs work, but that goes for a lot of stuff around here. Stephen Aquila 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Against: for reasons mentioned above, as well as the fact that this subject is well-covered at other places on the internet, such as About.com's paranormal pages ("Vanished! Unexplained Disappearances" and "Into Thin Air") and deserves to be adequately described in Wikipedia's paranormal section. Cynthia Sue Larson 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (Moved form paranormal vanishing talk page)
Keep The subject is notable as a whole, the events are notable, and there are more to be added. Perhaps better this way than separate articles on each. I confess that I think it is all a little nutty, but so is our culture--we are here to document it, not pass judgement on it. User:DGG
Delete still doesn't meet notability requirements, and still reads and feels like a neologistic explication. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: The article can help clearing some contraversary information of this topique.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Across Indiana

Delete, non-notable local documentary that contrary to the article claims did not win an Emmy but rather a regional emmy.Very few google hits.Xpendersx 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That an article makes a false or misleading claim is not an argument for deleting that article; it is an argument for fixing the false or misleading claim (and, in fact, the one you mention has already been fixed). Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless sources backs its assertion to notability. - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You will note that WP:DP states that only if the article content is unverifiable does it need deleted; if it simply lacks source citations, then the article should be kept so someone can fix it. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep A weekly show that runs on every PBS outlet in the state (except Fort Wayne), seen in at least two major markets (Chicago and Indianapolis), and has been on the air for 17 years. Wild Chicago is a similar (albeit more humor oriented) local PBS show that's notable enough for inclusion, I can't imagine why this wouldn't be, it's actually shown over a wider geographical and population base than Wild Chicago is. Tubezone 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wild Chicago being included in wikipedia is irrelevant, see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Xpendersx 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I agree with the policy, but my argument is that the two programs are of roughly similar notabilty for purposes of judging notability for inclusion, not that Wild Chicago is notable because it's in WP. Tubezone 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While I support keeping this article, Wild Chicago isn't really a good example of a precedent since it hasn't been subject to an AfD yet. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep in the absence of a policy requiring a deletion in this case. The reasons for deletion cited by the nominator are irrelevant and not grounded in policy. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Spirit Ministry

"Internet ministry" with no apparent notability. (Google hits are mostly online encyclopedia pages and internet forums.) I am also putting up for deletion its "daughter page", Universal chapel. —EdGl 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as blatant advertising or web content that does not assert notability, take your pick. Demiurge 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as non-notable websites Lurker ^oi! 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 'Cyber-prayer-room'? Um, no. The Crying Orc 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to the above, violates WP:COI WikkiTikkiTavi 03:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayford Football Club

Non-notable youth football team ChrisTheDude 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable youth team, no claim for any famous former players etc. - fchd 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wow, if you think this is bad, you shoulda seen what it was like before I removed 80% of it. riana_dzasta 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Johnn 7 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Violates WP:NFT and WP:NOT. Can't be any more than a dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faff

Dicdef. riana_dzasta 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Slang dicdef. eaolson 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
delete dicdef :: Princess Tiswas 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Whpq 16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. Delete. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. --Core desat 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Dominus Bate F.C.

This is a hoax. Aside from the preposterous claims made in the article, a web search turns up no results for the name of the team other than this page, and no results at all for the league they supposedly play in or the stadium they supposedly play at. Also, Hamilton Ricard plays in Colombia so it's unlikely he would also have managed a no-name team in Scotland ChrisTheDude 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This team exists! - I've seen them play in St Andrews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.212.28 (talk • contribs).
- ~~OK, in that case I withdraw the "hoax" reference but stand by my nomination on the ground of complete and utter non-notability ChrisTheDude 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)~~ Even if the team does exist, the article is still composed almost entirely of hoax material and nonsense, such as the blatantly untrue references to transfer fees paid and received ChrisTheDude 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article - The team exists within St Andrews University sunday football league —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stannrya (talk • contribs).
""DO NOT DELETE"" - Team does exist in a small league within St Andrews, the PAndrome Bates staidum is just a nickname for the St Andrews football pitches and stand. Also the original manager was Hamilton Richard, who was misspelt in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.212.29 (talk • contribs).

Comment It's still not notable for encyclopedic purposes. Tubezone 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment A Sunday League team who once bought a player for £4,000 and once sold one for £20,000? Utter nonsense.ChrisTheDude 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete - hoax, utter rubbish. Qwghlm 16:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - complete nonsense. No such league (or very much else referenced in the article) exists - fchd 17:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No De Bate, De Lete. Author should fish for sources, or cut bate. Tubezone 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per keep argument above. Playing in a Sunday league is automatic entry to the ranks of non-notability. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per arguments above. --Angelo 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HornetMike 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To brunt

Dicdef. riana_dzasta 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom. -- Whpq 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — per nom. Is there anything to verify the definition? Also, if this was an article about a verb, it'd be just "brunt". –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- All I can find for 'brunt' is what we'd normally use - main burden, main impact, all that sort of thing. riana_dzasta 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to delete, I suppose! I haven't heard this term used outside of the normal usage, so it could be something completely made up as well by the user. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wussy Boy Manifesto

One of many articles created by Poetryslam (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has been spamming the encyclopedia with articles about this dubious branch of 'poetry', this article is a massive copyvio, reproducing the entire 'poem' — although it is apparently used 'by the author's permission', 1) there is no evidence of that, and 2) if it is so used, there is a probable conflict of interest. On top of all that, the text itself is atrociously bad (subjective I know, but it is irrelevant to the decision — it just needs saying). The Crying Orc 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, delete, delete!--Folantin 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To paraphrase Mr B. P. E: "I tried to like dicdefs and demos/and webcomics and original philosophies/but I never got the hang of it!/I donʼt know whatʼs wrong with me..." Delete. riana_dzasta 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My username is Mailer Diablo, and I am a Wikipedian. It has taken me a long time to admit it...not!...that I want this article deleted. - 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The quill, the page, Delete rampage, uhh word up? Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - abominable, pointless dreck. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi 10:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Moreschi. Rever e ndG 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
delete this one please we do not need these kind of articles Yuckfoo 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. And I say this as a proud wussy-boy myself. WMMartin 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Andrew Thompson

Non-notable autobiography, covered by vanity policy. Has been marked as non-notable since Nov. 7 without rebuttal. -- Brianhe 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete — vanispamcruftisement. The mind truly does boggle. The Crying Orc 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. - Mailer Diablo 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per sobbing goblin. Rever e ndG 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Faster, pussycat, Delete, delete delete ! vanispamcruftisement WMMartin 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden Falling Down Syndrome

This seems to be a non-existing disease, google and PubMed searches didn't return any results. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete hoax. No Google hits (except its Wikipedia article). —EdGl 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not SD candidates: see WP:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BTW, according to WP:VANDAL, Creating joke or hoax articles is vandalism and thus such articles may indeed be shot on sight. As I read it, the hoax exclusion rule applies for articles that aren't obvious jokes or vandalism. Eg: see Tamaskan dog Tubezone 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete of course - a less-feeble joke than wikipedia usually gets, but still a pretty feeble hoax. - DavidWBrooks 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - wow, that's idiotic. riana_dzasta 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Wtf? --Red Pooka 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Please Delete this is stupid. Rever e ndG 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nonsense. Keesiewonder 01:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. Nephron T|C 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was "keep and open a merge debate on the article's talk page". Interestingly, the nominator appears to be a sockpuppet/single-purpose account. — CharlotteWebb 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gyaru-oh

non notable. Ghit 175. Zduiel 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - covered by Mainichi Daily News and MSN Japan [16]. Did you search for the term in Japanese or English? May well be notable in Japan, beware possible systemic bias. --Canley 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Canley 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Searching in Japanese produces 290,000 ghits. Likewise, a better English search produces 1,920, which isn't bad for a Japanese subsubculture. That said, I do wonder whether this is widely known enough to deserve its own article - would merging it into Gyaru be worth considering? — Haeleth Talk 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I wonder if [17] is a reliable enough source. If so, coupled with the mainichi article would make it notable enough (multiple independent third-party articles on the subject) to keep. ColourBurst 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Interesting find -- thanks for posting that. It certainly establishes that the subculture is notable enough, and I don't think there are any real verifiability concerns. So the subject should be discussed here -- it's merely a question of how it's most usefully arranged. I do honestly think it would be better discussed as a section within a wider context, either within Gyaru, or possibly within an article on Japanese male fashion (the article you link already does something similar, contrasting it with a different male fashion subculture, which seems to work quite well). My recommendation is therefore keep or merge, and if there's no consensus on which, keep and open a merge debate on the article's talk page. — Haeleth Talk 12:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Gyaru. Stebbins 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Gyaru Isn't this the same "culture" just two genders? Denaar 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge, but don't merge into gyaru. I do remember having read newspaper articles about this one. The phenomenon itself does just stem from gyaru, but the usage of that term is 100% separate from this term, so it probably shouldn't be turned into a redirect. Dekimasu 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALCS Graphical Interface - "ALCSGI"

Appears to fail notability guidelines for software. I can't find anything on the Internet about this. riana_dzasta 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sandstein 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not remotely an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamoja

Non-notable story. Thue | talk 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, patent nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense? Yes. Patent? Maybe, maybe not quite. At any rate, WP:NOT a free web host for (very) fledgling authors. Sandstein 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CastleQuest 2

Minor webgame, prod was removed by an IP without any reasoning. Alexa rank of roughly 280k, about 1800 Google hits, almost entirely forums or game directories. No major independent reviews or mentions either. Unverifiable and does not meet criteria set out in WP:WEB. Wafulz 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
delete unless someone has something indicating its notability... — brighterorange (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Unless lack of notability has become a form of notability! The Kinslayer 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:N and WP:CORP. The location of something does not confer notability to it, and the references do not vouch for notability (a motivational speaker speaking somewhere does not make it notable, especially if he himself is not notable, and he spoke at other schools in the same week). Also, as a private school, WP:CORP becomes a factor, and the article and the keep arguments do not make any attempt to address it. --Core desat 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montcrest School

Non-notable elementary school, with no assertion of notability - as such, fails WP:SCHOOL. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability.--Hús ö nd 21:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge to List of educational institutions in Toronto. It should really go without saying that schools are notable, insofar as they are a core institution of a human community. On the other hand, the potential for expansion appears to be limited. -- Visviva 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that most middle and secondary schools are notable, but most elementary schools, I think, are not. It's not necessarily the case that all schools are inherently notable. –- kungming·2

^(Talk) | Review 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or at worst merge Albatross2147 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Any reason for that opinion? JoshuaZ 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep There isn't anything in the current article that asserts notability; but if you can find reliable sources, then add to it. --SunStar Net 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, so you're admitting that the article does not asrt notability and does not contain reliable sources, and you're arguing to keep it? -- Kicking222 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles about cities, towns and villages, no matter how tiny, don't have to assert notability. All they have to do is assert that the hamlet exists. Some of us feel that the logical implication is that municipal functions of these towns - such as schools - are extended the same privilege. Until a definite policy or guideline exists, it means neither deletionists nor inclusionists are right or wrong - yet. But the lack of a guideline means there is no basis for calling for this article's deletion. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of us, on the other hand, feel that "cities, towns, and villages" should have to assert some manner of notability, same as everything else does (though for incorporated cities and larger towns, this wouldn't be very hard). But there are tons of "municipal functions and locations"-if we broadly exempt that, we run the risk of having "Office 22G in the municipal courthouse of Noplace, Nowhere", so long as something confirms its existence. Seraphimblade 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities, towns, and villages do assert some manner of notability; they are notable by virtue of being permanent, distinct human communities; likewise, independent countries are notable by virtue of being independent countries (or do they need to assert notability to?). IMO, schools are notable insofar as they are permanent core institutions of permanent human communities. In most cases, including the present one, "X is a (public/parochial/..) school in Y" is essentially equivalent to saying that "X is a permanent core institution of the permanent human community Y. It plays a key role in Y's performing the most basic function of human society, viz. education." How can that not be seen as a claim of notability? -- Visviva 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing an attribute of the whole with one of its parts. The above claim makes education notable, not every detail of how education occurs is notable. Similarly, fire engines are notable, not every single fire engine is notable. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparing fire engines to schools in terms of notability doesn't even come close to making logical sense of any kind. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete can't have every school. Rever e ndG 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't find anything notable about this school. As far as I can tell this school doesn't even pass the highly inclusive WP:SCHOOLS. (I would not object to instead having a redirect in place). JoshuaZ 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, actually we can have every school if the articles are encyclopedic and the information is verifiable, this article meet both requirements. bbx 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, currently the article consists of just a bunch of facts and statistics, and I'm not sure how it needs to be on Wikipedia, as the information is readily available at the school website. I myself am a member of WikiProject Schools, but I'm not sure how this meets WP:SCHOOL yet. Please feel free to correct me. =) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to meet WP:SCHOOLS, because WP:SCHOOLS is only a proposed guideline, and one that is not likely to be ratified anytime soon. By your own admission, the article is encyclopedic: "the article consists of just a bunch of facts and statistics". Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's exactly what makes it non-enclycopedic. Random data points do not an enclyclopedia article make. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. "Random data points"?? Please. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per the argument that schools are inherently unnotable and this one is no exception. Eusebeus 11:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The "argument that schools are inherently unnotable" is not backed up by any Wikipolicy, which is what AfD votes are supposed to be based on. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As you have pointed out at other school-related deletions, there is no agreed-upon policy except for WP:N, which implies that NOTHING is itself notable by default, only by its notability within its sphere and its achievements, which as Eusebeus points out, are lacking in this case. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Eusebeus pointing out any such thing. All I see is "Per the argument that schools are inherently unnotable and this one is no exception". He has no policy/guideline basis for saying this, and you have no policy/guideline basis for defending his having said it. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Entities need to make notability claims to have articles about them. Saying schools are inherently notable makes no more sense than claiming that all people are inherently notable. One needs a very compelling argument to put everything in a given category as notable enough to have its own article. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I just said? (Answer: nothing.) Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article does not assert notability. As it stands, nothing in the article would point to its passage of WP:SCHOOLS3 (nor WP:SCHOOLS, which is considerably more inclusive). -- Kicking222 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Failing to pass a guideline/policy that doesn't officially exist yet is no failure at all. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but given that WP:SCHOOLS is highly inclusive failure to pass it is a bit damning. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The notion that it is "highly inclusive" is your personal opinion. I have my own. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no assertion of notability, no sources cited at all. Seraphimblade 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Substub that makes no claims of its subject's notability, last line looks a lot like spam. Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no demonstrable evidence of remarkability or notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please or merge to greektown article readers should be able to research this here Yuckfoo 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and do not keep. I almost voted delete, but there is some encylopedic material in the article to merge. Vegaswikian 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Visviva. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Every viable and sourced school is notable. Kukini 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a ~~massive~~ community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. Many of those debates have led to "no consensus, defaults to keep" more than anything else. Furthermore, the majority of voices for keeping come from a small set of editors. Finally, not only have occasional schools in the past been deleted but if you look at current trends deletion has picked up massively in the last month or so. It is therefore inaccurate to claim that there is "massive community consensus" (these comments were made by User:JoshuaZ)

Keep per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination, Omadaf had his spam removed from the page recently.--Hús ö nd 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Blatant advertising, no original research, unverifiable claims, lacks neutral point of view… This article is a disguised advertisement for short certificate courses. Vague language: "The basic qualification..." unverifiable claims: "Typically..." and removal of links to sites that dispute the value of short certificate courses (TeachItaly.com) indicate this article should be deleted. Omadaf 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. So obvious that it hardly needs stating but this is a hugely notable part of the teaching profession. Keresaspa 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. But if anyone wants to rip this article apart and sew it together again in a more sensible way, I will lend them the needle and thread. It was in many ways so embarrassingly bad that I wrote caveats into it, and now put my energy into English language learning and teaching instead, just removing inappropriate material (esp. links) from TEFL as it clutters up. By the way, am I the first to come up with the neologism travel-teaching? BrainyBabe 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolo Lippolis

Fails WP:NOTE and is (probably) created as a vanity page -- dhp1080 ^(u·t·c) 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note He's mentioned as a water polo player here. The creator of the article did blank the page and say it was irrelevant though [18]. --Canley 18:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Google turned up nothing about him as a water polo player. Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as author requested it Hut 8.5 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per author. Rever e ndG 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 04:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey Bowl

Violates WP:NOR and possibly even WP:V. Does not include proper references, one of them even citing "Personal Experience", thus the NOR violation. Little of the information is verifiable, and it isn't notable outside of Maryland or alumni of Calvert Hall College and Loyola Blakefield. Héous 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Dreaded Walrus 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Being a new user, I do indeed find it difficult to compile a perfect wiki page. I do find it unacceptable however that the page me considered for deletion due to a poor first posting. Since being brought up for deletion, the WP:NOR violations have been cleared far enough for the charge to be dropped, in my opinion. As another user on the discussion for the page said, The notion that this event isn't notable outside of Maryland or graduates is quite uncalled for. This event is followed by graduates and students of the schools, families, relatives, and other schools. While this event may not matter to you, it would be foolish to say that this event is not notable. the scope of people who do care about this event is quite large, and is backed up by documentation. Though it may not appear in textbooks or encyclopedias, it is well documented in newspapers, not just in Baltimore. I thank you for your concern over the content of Wikipedia, whoever I do wish for you to reconsider your decision to mark this page for deletion. --Andier 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No sources are provided to back up any claim why this should be of more than local significance. The long string of results and most of the other content is unsourced. Sandstein 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This rivalry is one of the oldest in the country, the oldest Catholic-school rivalry in the country. The results and other claims are likely from gameday programs, of which I'm sure someone still has a copy from the game played just a week ago. Are there any scholarly books or in-depth web pages about the game? Of course not, it's high school. What did you expect, an Encyclopedia Britannica article? However, this does not mean it is not of significance. I made the first Turkey Bowl page because I thought it was one of the more noteworthy things not present on this site, and I'm sure a casual browsing of this site could find many more absurd articles than a century-old high school rivalry game, one of the biggest of its kind in the entire country. I will immediately add this link to the sources: [[19]]. Hopefully that will satisfy some of the more rabid sourcemongerers on Wikipedia. If anyone has a gameday program, I implore them to add its info to the page and cite it. Otherwise, I see no problem but citation with this article. Emphatic KEEP. Nursethisviper 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I expected the opposite before I read the article, I'm going to say Keep. Not a vastly significant event for any but afficionados, but I could imagine this coming up as a very difficult question on some multi-million dollar quiz show. I'm not saying we should carry the results and history of every local rivalry, but this one does seem to be persistent and mildly notable. WMMartin 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Die mannequin

non-notable band; I will be nominating the lead singer as well. Brianyoumans 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I have also nominated Care Failure. --Brianyoumans 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Hello32020 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep meets the criteria of WP:BAND cause Die Mannequin has gone on a national concert tour in Canada, opening for Guns'N'Roses on the eastern leg of their North American tour, which is reported in two newspaper articles stated there, they have released one album and will release another one on EMI, as stated in the EMI bio stated there, they have been featured in many published works, stated in the references. And by the way, Bryanyoumans is on a personal vendetta, trying to destroy many articles that I started cause I questionned his ways on wikipedia. He even states on my talk page that he submitted those two articles indirectly because of the unfriendly message I left on his talk page! Terveetkadet
And Keep the Care Failure entry too cause she has credit for writing lyrics AND music for Die Mannequin. And please do something about this "delete crazy" guy Bryanyoumans!205.237.53.91
- Comment From their edit histories, I would suspect that 205.237.53.91 and Terveetkadet are either the same person, or are friends who tend to work together. --Brianyoumans 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Shut up, you paranoid fool! I AM the same person, I just forgot to Log in! ! Give me a break!Terveetkadet
Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. --humblefool® 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above comment seems to have been accidently deleted from this spot by Mhking while editing his/her comment. I do NOT mean to imply that it was intentional, it looks like an editing mistake to me. --Brianyoumans 07:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- meets WP:BAND with 15,000+ Google citations. I've heard of the band, though its music is not my style. They've opened for Guns n' Roses on tour, plus they have a large fan following north of the border and oversears. --Mhking 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There do seem to be a lot of Ghits, although when I looked, there seem to be only 367 unique. Are there references to the Canadian tour? I thought they only opened for a few of the shows. --Brianyoumans 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Meets criterion 3 of WP:BAND and is verified with sources. May also meet criterion 6 because of association with DFA1979. I urge ignorance of Terveetkadet's trolling above when reviewing this article. Chubbles1212 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Procedural note: there was a template here indicating that the above user may be a sockpuppet of User:Terveetkadet. However, the template is supposed to go on userpages only, and I have removed it. theProject 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - My mistake; I placed that template, and I meant it to refer to the user below, not to myself. Thanks for the heads-up. Chubbles 06:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Wikipedia has an article by Brianyoumans on Adamu Tesfaw; arguably a much less notable artist than Die Mannequin, as far as the English version of Wikipedia is concerned. So why can we not have the Die Mannequin article? I, for one, found it very useful. Brianyoumans has posed no valid reason to delete this article, other than his own opinion. Wikipedia, would be greatly undermined if the opinions of individual users began to dictate what is relevant content and what is not. Please do not remove this article. ThomasArgon 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) — ThomasArgon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have in fact considered the notability requirements for bands. The requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (music) as listed: #1, charted hit - no claim for that in article; #2, gold record - ditto; #3 - international or national concert tour - the article claims that they "opened a few dates" for Guns and Roses (which is good, I admit). I haven't seen a reference that this constituted a tour of Canada. #4 - two or more albums released - no; #5 - featured in multiple non-trivial sources - I haven't seen proof of that; the articles referenced in the article are mostly small mentions in articles on the G&R tour; #6 - contains at least one member who is a member of a notable group - no (Jesse Keeler played on the EP, but is not a member of the group); #7 - most notable representative of a style - not claimed in article; #8 - major award - no; #9 - won a competition - no; #10 - performed notable theme music or soundtrack - no; #11 - placed in major network rotation - no claim of such; #12 - subject of at least half hour feature - no. So.... I'm open to withdrawing this nomination if anyone adds references for any of these, but, until then, they are a band with one EP out. --Brianyoumans 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. "Sources" cited are about a Guns 'n Roses tour, not about this band, and do nothing to establish this one's notability. Seraphimblade 02:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP has a lot of radio airplay in Canada, opened for GNR and is signedon EMI as well as regularly featured in many big Canada newspapers.24.226.160.237
- - I suspect that 24:226:160:237 is in fact our friend Terveetkadet again. The talk page for 24:226:160:237 shows two edits from July, and one is a response signed by 205.237.53.91, which Terveetkadet has identified as himself earlier in this discussion. The two addresses also have similar edit histories, and they added similar keep votes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Nasties and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Invasion of the Tribbles. --Brianyoumans 11:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Question. Can you cite any sources showing regular airplay or widescale press coverage (NOT trivial mentions such as being just "mentioned" as an opener, but an article actually written about them?) That would clearly establish notability and would solve this whole issue. Seraphimblade 12:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
STrong Keep: Very important to the future —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.248.93 (talk • contribs). — 24.89.248.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment More references added, including the McGill Daily article, stating that the band not only opened for Guns'N'Roses but also for BuckCherry on their Canadian tour and also that they made a few Canadian tours themselves. Terveetkadet
KEEP Band opened for Guns N' Roses in Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax, and St. John (how many provinces are considered for it to be a national tour?), also for BuckCherry, in addition to their own tours and are signed to a major label. Also appeared at EdgeFest (major Canadian festival) on the Next Big Thing stage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.4.175 (talk • contribs) . — 74.12.4.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm not completely impressed with the McGill article - it seems to be based on the interview with Care Failure, and I'm not sure what her idea of "brief Canadian tours" is. But if they did if fact open 4 dates for G&R, I'd probably be down to a "weak delete" myself. The article is looking more notable. --Brianyoumans 07:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentYou know what? I don't care if you're "impressed" or not! You're a delete-crazy fool and I just want to make sure that this important article is saved from your stubborn self... Will you drop the matter once and for hall? And Die Mannequin DID open ALL THE GUNS AND ROSES DATES IN CANADA THIS FALL. This means 5 or 6 dates now (if you read the articles that you, silly references freaks, thrive on) and counting...Terveetkadet
  - Comment. Terveetkadet - You realize that an administrator is going to look at this AfD page, and they're going to delete your article, right? And not because the band isn't notable, but because you have handled this in an utterly foolish manner. Because you have turned your addition to Wikipedia into a personal assault, no one is going to pay attention to the band's entry, only your sockpuppeting and vitriol. And the result is, Die Mannequin will become a red link. I suggest crossing out (with the <s> and </s> tags) all of your ad hominem attacks and sock-puppeted votes, as a measure of courtesy. Chubbles 16:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I think that administrators are supposed to review these pages on the matter of the subject in question and NOT delete an item just because I argued with a guy who's trying to destroy my work in a way that you don't approve. I respect every person who made a comment here EXCEPT brianyoumans cause he destroyed my work in the past, he wants to destroy it again and he takes pride in the numerous pages he deleted. He even lists them in his user page. So sorry but NO <s> and </s> tags) for that guy. But I kindly ask you if you could retract your accusations of "sockpuppetry" cause I NEVER made such a thing. Prove it if you can.Terveetkadet
Nomination Withdrawn - I was not able to verify the tour dates from any of the references in the article, but after a good bit of research, I found a tour listing on Guns N Roses Daily that verifies that Die Mannequin did in fact open 5 shows for them in Canada, in Halifax, Toronto, Quebec City, Ottawa, and St. John's. I think that probably constitutes enough of a tour to establish some notability, so I will withdraw this nomination. Kudos to Terveetkadet and others for improving the article quite a bit during this discussion. --Brianyoumans 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). theProject 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity 5ths

Div 13 girls field hockey team from Dublin. Totally non-notable. No incoming links. Daveb 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"due to the property that you can only get promoted one division a year, it will be at least 12 years before this team ever sees Division 1" — delete, without prejudice to possible recreation in 2018. Demiurge 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Camw 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Senser

Probably a hoax. Google returns nothing for "Ethan Senser" cheez whiz, and the Kraft foods history page doesn't mention him either [20]. Article has been previously speedied for being a nonsense article. So in short, it fails to verify the claims made. --Lijnema 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I actually contested the prod in an attempt to give the beneifit of the doubt and more time for sources, but it appears it's a hoax. --Oakshade 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, probable hoax/nonsense looking at the creator's only other contributions [21] [22]. Demiurge 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Rever e ndG 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I spent some time looking around trying to verify the information, and found nothing, except for mention of a student by the name of "Ethan Senser."[23] I agree that this looks like a hoax. --Elonka 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This looks very much like a hoax, I can't find any verifiable information; and there's no reliable sources. --SunStar Net 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Proto::type 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Adair

Non-notable candidate for Washington's Senate seat that received less than 1% of the votes. Google search is somewhat deceptive as she shares the name of a poem from the 18th century, a folk song, and an actress from the 30's.--Bobblehead 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shift subject to the 1930s actress that would be more notable: delete with current subject. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the 1930's actor notable? (turns out that Robin is a man) According to IMDb he had uncredited appearances in 3, possibly 4, movies.[24] That doesn't seem very notable to me. --Bobblehead 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, this does need cleanup, and the cleanup tags on the article are valid. --Core desat 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrow on the Hill

No notability asserted, plus not wikified. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

obvious keep. Real place, though the page could do with tidying. "Not wikified" has never been a valid deletion criterion. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP: it's a real place well-known to London residents.--Lost tourist 11:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Harrow, London, because that's where the redirect Harrow-on-the-Hill goes to. -- Roleplayer 12:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Real place and very well known in London. --Oakshade 23:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Proto::type 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fakeguys Publications Ltd.

Should change the category to Humor from the former Soviet Union, or something like that. Keep this entry as it is. These parody papers are relevant in the former Soviet Union to foreigners living there. So what if it is not a registered company?

It has no refferences. It's not notable. It doesn't even seem a real company (just two weblogers). Jahangard 18:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see the four related articles:

The Kyiv Beet
The Khujand Plov
The Yerevan Lavash
The Baku Dolma
Delete — Non-notable parody corporation. Google returns exactly one hit. Granted, they may be more well-known in Russia - so prehaps this should be put in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, if there is one. I'll change my vote to keep, if this corporation is in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, at least in english. Rever e ndG 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbstmilch

No notability asserted, lacks importance information. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep: Not a very famous german film. IMDB is a more appropriate location for the article. STTW (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep: But should include the book and more details on notability. The book was one of the biggest bestsellers ever in Germany and was in the bestseller lists for three years. The film won a couple of prizes and was also a great box-office success (over 2 million viewers) - very noteworthy considering the author and subject matter. It was the first film by director Joseph Vilsmaier. More research needed to provide authoritative references. See also de:Herbstmilch --Boson 23:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep for reasons above, not only the top 50 of the NY Times or what comes out of Hollywood is notable ... at least not if Wikipedia keeps its claim to universality. In Europe the film and book were noted Alf photoman 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embrace the End Demo Tape

A demo tape? How is that notable? I fail how it meets WP:MUSIC. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Does not even come close to beginning to qualify under WP:MUSIC. Qualifies for {{db-band}}--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Callas

Does nothing to demonstrate the subject's notability. If kept, needs extensive working to reflect some of the categories it is in. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

merge all character of Category:The Clique characters. -- Cate 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Note The page is now meant to be a redirect. I am closing this and removing the tags in order to allow the redirect to work. The redirect goes to The Clique. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climb a Volcano

unsure if this meets notability guidelines. Weatherman90 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Weatherman90, you beat me to AfDing this by a second or so. No reliable sources for this. The only source given is the website for this event. I'm still concerned of possible copyright violations of [25] for this...but there's no copyright information on the website. Metros232 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I was suspicious of this before, and now even more suspicious considering a different username just showed up making another copy of the article: Climb A Volcano. Seems like a scam/hoax to me. And also since I just now checked and found the creator of THIS one tried removing the afd tag twice. -WarthogDemon 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I deleted the duplicate and will keep an eye on that. Metros232 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
UnDelete While the wisdom of having a junior high child edit escapes me, the changes have been made by a several supporters who care about this organization. It is a factual page and unlike someone obsessed with Barry Manilow it actually makes the world a better place. If you two have nothing better to do than harass six-year old children - how sad for you. Otherwise you should contact the attorney whose name appeard on the web site in several places.

Mountainmonkey 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- Comment How are we harassing six year olds? Please refrain from personal attacks here. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
UnDelete I just read the policy for deletion and this article clearly does not qualify. There is no copyright issue, nor is this a vanity article. Unless you have some evidence that this is illegal, this page will remain. For newer users of wiki there are a number of rues and procedures we are still learning - in turn there are a number of overzealous edits being made in the name of juking stats to claim more edits not good edits. The educational outreach of this program is slated to reach a large number of students and adults - more than 1 million so before you guess a post is suspicious do some basic research. Musicbiz 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment how about one of the top 3 content policies of Wikipedia, verifiability? Is this verifiable? No, it doesn't appear so. The only sources given for it are the events' website. Metros232 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment There is contact info at the web site for an attorney and I will provide you with contact info at the Global Fund if you email me with a private email address, but the contact info at TGF should not be part of a public record or they would be inundated with junk. Common sense will tell you if a California bar approved attorney is listed with his business contact data that this is for real. Attorney's don't risk their bar status on scams. ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~~This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
    - Comment Emailing an attorney does not qualify as a reliable source to reach verifiability standards. Metros232 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
UnDeleteI am a marketing executive working with sponsored charities including Children's Miracle Network (cmn.org) and I am familiar with this forthcoming event tied in with The Global Fund. It is legitimate and I suggest any concerns be raised with the chief counsel for this charitable venture, Arnold Goldstein. If you would like to boardmail me your personal phone number I would be happy to contact you directly and address any of your concerns about this international charity event. Regards,Todd Erickson toer13
Comment Three votes opposed to deletion, all using the somewhat odd term "UnDelete" in lieu of the more conventional "Keep", and two of which only have edits to this page and the subject article, all of which were made within the last 24 hours. Interesting. Eron 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, I sent an email out to a couple of people like Todd and told them to use that term, because I didn't know to write "Keep." ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
  - So, you wrote to two people who - judging from their contribution histories - then came here for the sole purpose of voting against deletion of this article. So you are admitting that they were single-purpose accounts? Eron 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, non-verifiable. Precisely one google hit for "climb a volcano" and "global fund", three for for "climb a volcano" and "keats", and none that have anything to do with this. Eron 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is brand new so I am surprised there are any hits. ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
Delete A clear hoax; contains factual inaccuracies, perhaps only apparent if you have climbed Kilimanjaro. Particularly, if you develop hypoxic pulmonary edema (oedema in the UK) oxygen will not help. You MUST descend.--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment THis is my bad, the writing is unclear here. What shoudl have been written is that in children, HAPE is difficult to diagnose properly and it often shares symptoms with less serious ailments. Oxygen will often alliviate the symptoms allowing a correct diagnosis, and a continuation of the climb if it is simple an altitude headache. With HAPE you must descend, again my bad, but hardly a "clear hoax," at worst a lazy mistake. ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
Delete Bring it back when it's notable and verifiable, as of now, it isn't. And no, Mr. Musicbiz, you don't get to determine whether it stays or not, or control the edits. Tubezone 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the above. Given that the Global Fund is a consortium of national-level donors, an effort like this is far outside its fundraising purview, even if genuine. Robertissimo 05:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment THis is a new event, prior to going online with any information, The Fund had to "sign off" on the event. So you are not quite correct on their reach. ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
  - Comment Well, not to toot my own horn, but I have spent the last couple of years working with the Fund in various ways and so have a fairly good idea of its scope, scale, and methodology. What is the associated 501(c)3 non-profit that is performing oversight on this project? The logistics of getting a U.S.-based tot (and may we presume that the doe-eyed child photoshopped onto the elephants on the site is in fact the putative climber?) up Kilimanjaro must significant, and that overhead could easily eat up the funds raised via PayPal... Robertissimo 20:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment How can one tell it's photoshopped? (Not that I'm skeptic...) -WarthogDemon 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again another case of someone making wild accusations. This image was taken outside the closed set of Evan Almighty on the Universal lot. ~~Musicbiz 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
delete - I don't know whether this is a hoax or not, but then that's why articles need to be able to meet WP:V which this article fails to do. -- Whpq 18:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment THis is a legitimate observation. Once The Fund links to "Climb" from their web site, which should occure in the next few weeks, I will have someone repost. Once that occurs, I do hope that those of you that are so convinced that this is hoax will do a little "make good." After all it is easy to tear down and any mistakes that have been made as it goes are mine, and the supporters I reached out to, and not those of The Fund or the boy. This thing is new and sometimes you learn as you go. So delete away. ~~Musicbiz 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
Delete per nom, per nonverifiability, and per the fact that the article has next to no content about its subject; it's all about routes up Mount Kilimanjaro, mosquitoes, and the Global Fund, all of which have perfectly suitable articles of their own. The proper place for this information is a sentence in List of climbers, but only after the child in question has actually finished the climb (or died in the process). --Quuxplusone 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, and use of single-purpose accounts just sealed the deal. ReverendG 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment When I sent out an email to a few people, I had no way of knowing if they had wiki accounts or not, if that violates some rule, my apologies. It's clear that no amount of facts or explinations will satisfy many of you. I understand it is the poster's hurdle to verify and obviously I should have waited a few weeks, and undoubtedly I should have written more about the educational outreach - live and learn. ~~Musicbiz 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~ This comment was posted by user 24.54.227.131
Comment Is there a reason that user 24.54.227.131 is making edits to this page and then signing them as user MusicBiz? For example, see diffs here and here. Eron 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Ducted Electrolysis

By now my reservoir of AGF for this nest of articles is nearly exhausted. This article is only a pretext and link container to advertize companies selling a very dubious product and seeking investors.

Note that this statement by Pjacobi is an unsubstantiated stereotype and removal of this article will help perpetuate false claims. Keeping this article will help squach stereotypes and will in-turn clarify the true naure of the subject at hand. The only reason these stereotypes exist is because of entrenched carbon infrastructure; I mention this because in other countries, especially Korea and China common ducted electrolysis technologies are quickly becoming the foundation of their fuel infrastructure. Why distribute liquid fuels, when electrical networks and on-site fuel production its more intuitive? Noah Seidman 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare HHO/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO and Brown's Gas/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination).

Do you think, fuel can be saved by using a trucks light machine to produce Brown's Gas by Common Ducted Electrolysis and feed it into to engine to burn there?

OK, even if it were complete WP:BOLLOCKS it would deserve an article (but not four) if a notable scam, but I don't see this.

Pjacobi 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unreferenced bollocks. Dr Zak 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Pure original research as it stands.DMacks 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article contains pure common sense that has been hitherto un-addressed. Without clearly stating the distinction between common ducted electrolysis and independently ducted electrolysis the perpetuation of stereotypes will ensue. This article is important to keep to squash unsubstantial stereotypes. How can this be origional research, this article is just pure common sense rationality. Noah Seidman 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How can this be origional research, this article is just pure common sense rationality. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have a process to ban a user for complete failure to understand (or deliberate disregard of) WP:NOR. John Broughton | Talk 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Support Ban it does have such a process. It falls under something like "trying the patience of the community". Rklawton 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not reaching an encyclopedic level of notability. Keeping an article because it mitigates stereotypes or because it is common sense aren't valid reasons to keep in my opinion. Articles can be deleted no matter how true/accurate/rational they are. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & above --Vsmith 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Debunkify per nom, this article isn't encyclopedic. Indeed, it is quite misleading. Rklawton 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signe Nordli

What's noticeable about being on the cover of Playboy once? How does this warrant a Wikipedia article? Irk _(talk) 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- Notable. nearly all cover girls have an article: see List of people in Playboy 2000-present. -- Cate 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A model that makes the cover of one of the most popular magazines in the world is definitely notable. --Oakshade 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famine in India

Article is a complete POV mess, it should be deleted or stubbed. Original text had a single reference from an obscure foreign press. Later on another author from a single-purpose account (who may or may not be the same person) adds a few more mostly obscure books at the bottom, and admits on the talk page that some are 'primary sources', which is against WP:OR. Additionally no page-number or chapter references at all are in the text. Article should be rewritten from scratch with NPOV in-mind, properly page-referenced and with verifiable references. Merzbow 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clear this AfD is going to fail, so I've started editing the article to clean up some of the worst POV problems. I'll also hit the other articles that this same text appears in. - Merzbow 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep clearly encyclopaedic topic, whatever the state of the current article. (I don't think AfD is the place for this; the deletion process cannot solve content disputes like this). Demiurge 21:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and fix. The nomination suggests that the page is POV and poorly referenced; those are reasons to fix the page, not delete it. Eron 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think enough references are provided, but expand the article and take out the line referring to the book written by Bhatia. Right now, the article reads like a thesis.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep article is a mess and probably should be canned and done again when the begining editor is feeling a little more committed. Complete abortive messes of articles almost never pass afds though so I may as well lend my support towards cleaning it up. •Elomis• 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep How can you remove a page on Famine In India what a load of utter right wing abuse. Famine in India has slauthted as many lives as the holocaust on what basis of facist logic should we ban web pages on this subject. It makes you think wiki is a western conspiracy. Grotesque. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.132.131 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - AFD is not cleanup. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Can we please leave the Godwin's Law accusations and "western bias" nonsense out of the discussion and simply debate the matter at hand. Also, No AFD is not cleanup, but some articles are such a mess that they should be removed if they can't be quickly cleaned up. •Elomis• 06:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - {{sofixit}} Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup. As an aside: the subject matter of this article is more notable than that of many other Wikipedia articles. 69.140.173.15 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - There have (sadly) been famines in India.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please this subject is notable in a encyclopedic way and should be verified Yuckfoo 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

This article has had several months of confusion. It's never gone beyond much more than merely being an un-sourced descriptive list. Attempts to add such things as a sourced Etymology have been opposed, usually by a single editor consistantly reverting. See: Talk:Wizard (fantasy) if you have a long length of time to read. Note that you will want to attempt to read the page history contemporary to the discussion, else it can become rather hard to follow at times. One editor has created continuous streams of RfCs, and even when spamming several other editor's talk page, only 1 or 2 people have responded. Since then the article's information has been merged to several articles. Now it's to the point of navigation and a disagreement of where the redirect should point to. I think it's time to just delete this mish-mosh of an article, and move on. - jc37 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused. Wizard (fantasy) is currently a redirect to Wizard. That's a disambig page (and there's no question of deleting it Too many valid references). What exactly do you have a problem with? Are you sure you don't want to take this to WP:RFD? Mister.Manticore 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. This is an otherwise valid redirect that goes to Wizard, another article that is otherwise perfectly valid. --Dennisthe2 23:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. For some history: after a dispute about what information was appropriate (the first RFC), a compromise was proposed that the article be merged with Magicians in fantasy. Jc37 merged information to Magicians in fantasy and List of magicians in fantasy -- and then redirected the article to Wizard. As the Wikipedia guidelines clearly show, this is not the standard practice for mergers. Neither would deleting it be. It should be redirected to one of the pages it was merged with. Rather than enter an edit war, I opened the second RFC -- and those two RFC constitute the "continuous streams of RfCs" that Jc37 complains of.

I note that one of the other editors has consulted an adminstrator, and reports that there are licensing concerns about merely deleting it. Goldfritha 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if some of the content has been merged elsewhere, the record of this article must be kept. Furthermore, I suggest the people involved go through Dispute Resolution to resolve their differences. Mister.Manticore 01:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Wizard (fantasy) is over two and half years old and has a long edit history. It's contents were merged into another article, so the resulting redirect can't be deleted because it contains a list of editors who contributed to the content that was merged into the Magicians in fantasy article. We need to keep that list to satisfy the GFDL licence that Wikipedia uses. Since the information was put into the "Magicians in fantasy" article, the standards would seem to indicate that that is the proper choice for redirect. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - the edit history at Wizard (fantasy) certainly needs to be kept. The issue of where the page redirects to is, in fact, independent of where the material formerly in it was moved or merged to, despite what some people have been saying. I'll discuss in more detail over on the talk page. Carcharoth 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as a POV fork. --Core desat 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniakophobia

Patent Nonsense - Google gives us this response "Your search - Bosniakophobia - did not match any documents." Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism/POV fork of Anti-Bosniak sentiment. WP:POINT may also be relevant, given that the creator has edited Serbophobia previously and added an AfD tag to it after this AfD was created. Demiurge 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete original ~~research~~ neologism.--Hús ö nd 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can find no source of this neologism except this article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
DON'T DELETE Anti-Bosniak Sentiment can be merged into Bosniakophobia. It is very important that the term Bosniakophobia is represented! Read my reasoning bellow! Bosniak 22:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
~~DO NOT DELETE~~ There is Serbophobia, and Bosniakophobia also deserves to be explored and written about. The use of this word is limited in English-written media, but is widespread in Bosnian media. This is not an invented word. In fact, if Bosniakophobia is invented term, then Serbophobia is also invented term, and for the sake of fairness, if you decide to delete Bosniakophobia, then please delete Serbophobia also. This article deserves a chance. It's still under construction, it will look much richer after a month or so when more users join in and contribute. There is no valid reason to delete this article. Bosniakophobia, or fear from and extreme prejudice against Bosniaks is a fact that must be dealt with.Serbophobia In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Wikipedia content). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should also not be deleted. Give it a chance, let other people join in and help the article. Let's work together and make this another great Wikipedia article. Bosniak 21:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: both of the comments directly above were posted by the article's author in a somewhat confusing fashion; I altered the format to keep the page readable. The text was not otherwise altered. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a fork from Anti-Bosniak Sentiment, which expresses the exact same facts in a more comprehensive manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. With zero Google hits and no sources, a clear case of WP:V. Sandstein 22:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Precisely zero Google hits and the topic is already dealt with under a descriptive title in Anti-Bosniak sentiment. // Еstavisti 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Patent nonsense, apparently only written to make a point. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Demiurge. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Anti-Bosniak sentiment, provided we can verify that the word "Bosniakophobia" exists in English. Otherwise delete. —Psychonaut 12:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Zero google hits. The word didn't appear in Anti-Bosniak sentiment until User:Bosniak added it and, at the same time, removed Serbophobia. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Rever e ndG 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This user is implementing his own views. This word does not exist at all. The Bosnian Wikipedia is thinking of deleting it there as well. Such word simply does not exist. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "web site" that invents new terminologies. Thank you, Vseferović 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Jim Douglas. --Svetislav Jovanović 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete -- In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Wikipedia content). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should not be deleted. Give it a chance, let other people join in and help the article. Let's work together and make this another great Wikipedia article. Bosniak 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment this comment has been struck out as a duplicate of what Bosniak had already posted. Additionally, he had already "voted" to keep the article (twice, in fact). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per nomination EuroSong ^talk 12:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Anti-Bosniak sentiment. Why should we have two articles (especially when one of them bears a far less notable name and is a lot lesser and poorly written). --PaxEquilibrium 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it doesn't even google !. Given Bosniaks are predominantly Muslim then I suspect it's really a fork of Islamophobia. Bosniak is simply appealing for people to do WP:OR to pad out the article. When someone notable works out how to pronounce it (thats a Bosniakophobia joke I guess !) and say it in public on notable media then it could be worthy. Ttiotsw 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Nikola 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete but merge the good information into Anti-Bosniak sentiment. Also, I think the word is "Bosniakphobia" not "Bosniakophobia" - thats if the word exists at all - Ivan K
Delete, and salt and take a good hard look at the author's other contributions. "Giveitachance" should be listed along with "Ilikeit" as reasons for instant deletion. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Rutgers Scarlet Knights Football Team

Delete a sub-stub article for an individual team. P.S. On a side note, why is it that College football teams don't have their own articles? For instance, Rutgers Scarlet Knights redirects to the Rutgers University article. If anyone is willing to start the Rutgers Scarlet Knights article then change this to a redirect to that article. Jersey Devil 21:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment many successful Division I athletics programs have articles on their programs. UCLA Bruins, Duke Blue Devils, and North Carolina Tar Heels are just some examples. Metros232 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep all individual college football season articles for individual teams. Please see Category:2006 NCAA Division I-A football season, all team articles in that category need to go if this one goes,not to mention ones for previous years. There are many already made, this just happens to be one of the ones with the least info. Please see a related discussion here. VegaDark 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per VegaDark. This is a particularly notable season for the oldest college football program ever. The article's problem (and the reason I went with "keep" instead of "strong keep") is that it needs to be written; with absolutely no info about the season, the article really shouldn't exist when it's of this quality. However, I absolutely think this article should exist. (Note: Did any of this make sense?) -- Kicking222 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, why should Rutgers not get the same fair shake every other college football team does? StayinAnon 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Teke^(talk) 02:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jogos cassino

Meets neither WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Just one of the many websites using Playtech software, and Playtech has an article. 2005 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, blatant advertising. Demiurge 22:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. Tulkolahten 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete obvious advertising. Has been tagged {{db-spam}} by User:Cybergoth.--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, due to lack of reliable and non-trivial published sources despite the surprisingly large amount of digging people did. Opabinia regalis 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suite101.com

Note to closing admin: please see talk page before deciding outcome. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Company appears to be non-notable A. B. 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: this article was authored by a company employee. Furthermore, the company has aroused some controversy by virtue of many of its writers adding links to Wikipedia articles in violation of WP:EL. Nevertheless, the critical point as I see it turns on notability -- by our rules as an encyclopedia, if they're notable, they're included regardless of congeniality, ethics, or other POV attributes. See the talk page of the article for more discussion of notability -- several of us did a lot of digging and came up with some a few references, but they're very mrginal at best. I'm bringing the article to deletion not so much as a partisan for its deletion but more to get a broader community look at it and the refs. --A. B. 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Switch to "weak keep" based on Jim Douglas' comment and the NY Times refs he found. --A. B. 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~

Weak delete per follow-on discussion of NY Times links. What a flip-flopper I've been on this one, especially to have been the nominator. Sorry. --A. B. 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I believe WP:WEB applies here, and this article fails it. The one source that is provided as an example of third-party coverage doesn't strike me as very substantial. Sandstein 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Still a delete for me after seeing the references in the NYT, which amount to some 20 words in total. Utterly trivial coverage, not enough for an article yet. Sandstein 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

* Weak keep per NYTimes references; Alexa rank of 5,721 seems fairly high. But if the company is trying to create a puff piece here, they may find the article becoming something entirely different. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the NY Times links, Jim. Several of us dug around pretty thoroughly for evidence of notability and didn't find anything, so you win the search prize. The blogspot link is interesting but doesn't meet WP:EL. At first, I though the Writers Weekly site probably met WP:RS, but I'm not sure it maybe isn't more like a blog -- what do you think? --A. B. 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if I was unclear! No, I didn't intend for those links to be taken as valid external links; I was just pointing out that there appears to be a significant amount of ill will floating around out there, and the company may regret opening this can of worms. BTW, re: those NYTimes articles; the references to Suite101.com are somewhat incidental, so I'm kind of on the fence. The Alexa rank seems pretty high, though. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing to Weak delete. Ok, call me a flip-flopper too. I've been teetering on the fence, and I didn't want this to be just a pile-on, but I tend to agree that two incidental NYTimes references aren't quite enough, particularly after re-reading what the current article says about relaunching in 2006 under new management; I don't see any recent and notable third-party citations. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Suite101 dot com doesn't give me warm-and-fuzzies about the company. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Transform pour encourager les autres as a counterexample and instructive footnote to the history of companies which attempt to use Wikipedia as an outlet for commercial hype (similar to Jim Douglas' initial remarks on weak keep). Athænara ✉ 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

DELETE. The (please pardon the term) company weasels and their persistent prevarication have altered my earlier (convert article into object lesson) and much less annoyed view. They've been trying to take us for a ride to dump us where we can't find our way back. Enough already. (cf. project talk page.) – Æ. ✉ 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Sandstein. I am not partisan regarding the addition of links to S101 in WP articles - that can be dealt with separately. Here we are discussing notability of a website per WP:WEB. A single 4½ year old article (which basically said the company was in decline) in a non-notable email newsletter is a clever find, but does not achieve notability for the company. The information we have is that the company operates under a different business model now and therefore that citation is largely irrelevant on content alone. Regarding the Alexa rank, I wonder if that link wasn't achieved at least in part through spamming Wikipedia. If this company was notable, there'd be a lot more independent reviews and news on them than there seems to be. — Moondyne 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the present content should not be kept—Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages offering free display ads. I addressed the usefulness, above, of what a very different article recounting this one's journey down the tubes might become. – Æ. 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I'm the original prodder on this one. There is so many unreliable sources out there for this one that it is tough finding substantial reliable sources on this. The New York Times is obviously a reliable source, but the mentions of the site are, at best, in passing. I see a fair amount of blog entries mentioning some of the problems this organization is having, but if this were a notable site, it seems to me that it would be possible to find references to these issues (or even positive ones) in a site we could reference per WP:RS. I'm open to being proven wrong here, but so far I'm not seeing how this article could be more than a stub. ScottW 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the references found in the NY Times only amount to drive by mentions of the site. Not enough for me. -- Whpq 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - This is a tough one for me. I actually utilize this website, posted there a few times and read from it alot, particularly from its investing advice sections. From my experience with it, I would say it is a very large in scope, prolific and heavily used website. I'm just a a regular person who has had no connection with this company's management* and who lives in a place far away from the company's headquarters. (*Disclosure:the nice president and I recently discussed this matter on my talk page after I demonstated I was sympathetic to this company.) I know this is antidotal, but it's one of those situations where it seems that it's notable even if if it doesn't strictly fall under WP inclusion guidelines. I really have been looking hard for more conventional reliable sources, found this article from Blog Critics Magazine [26] which is an independent write-up (I just inserted this into the article), but I'm not finding alot more... it has been suggested by the president that print articles exist from sources like The Globe and Mail and The Vancouver Sun but the corresponding web articles have been delted. Sometimes the media simply misses notable things. I might have to employ WP:POKEMON comparisons with this one and look to sites like ezboard or OhmyNews where similar companies, perhaps lower in scope, have articles. Teetering on WP:IGNORE, these might not be the usual arguments for inclusion, but I feel there should be an exception to the rules in some cases. --Oakshade 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
KeepParticularly in the areas of travel and freelance writing, Suite 101 provides quality content. I say it's a winner, not only for the number of clicks it receives. Similar contribution projects in cyberspace have gone belly-up in the interim.Youtrue 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Appears to edit in very close conjunction with Rough. See comments on talk page.--A. B. 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, I agree that it is bad style to have a company employee write an article for Wikipedia, but somebody else should have done it. Notability cannot be found on the web allone. Rough 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Appears to edit in very close conjunction with Youtrue. See comments on talk page.--A. B. 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When company employees write a Wikipedia article to promote the company which employs them, it is not merely "bad style" but an attempt to corrupt the encyclopedia for the purpose of advertising their company. To Rough, Youtrue, 213.42.21.78, and however many more are in this little promotion crew: you need to read What Wikipedia is not and comprehend it. – Æ. ✉ 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this discussion seems not to be about notability but about a employee writing the article. Naem 213.42.21.78 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also appears to edit in conjunction with Rough -- see talk page.--A. B. 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would debate as to whether that is actually the case with this IP, looking at its history. Robdurbar 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No evidence that site meets WP:WEB. References are outdated/weak. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Im prejudiced çause I got some articles there. 200.106.170.4 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment very borderline this one. A quick search in google news brings up a number of results [27], but a decent percentage are probably discountable due to the fact that they are trivial and/or press releases. Don't know if others would like to comment on these results. --Robdurbar 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I looked through a fair amount of these results. So far, the vast majority of what I can find is self promotion on free sites, pr sites, and blogs. A couple of other editors did the same, and so far very little substantial has come up. Earlier in the discussion, someone noted a mention in the NYTimes, but if you take a look at the article, I think you'll agree that it falls in the trivial category. If this is a notable company/site, there would be at least some degree of non-trivial, independent coverage. I'm open to being convinced to the contrary, but so far, my conclusion is that this coverage doesn't exist. ScottW 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Proto::type 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knuckle Duster (Radio 2-B)

Previously prod'ed, with that tag being removed and no extra evidence of notability being added. Essentially, we have here a 25sec interlude on an album by a notable band. It's not even an album track which didn't get released as a single, it's 25 seconds of excerpts from radio programs (either real or artificial). There are a couple of other tracks on the same album which would appear to fall into this category as well, but I'm refraining from mass-nominating them for the simple reason that it would muddy the waters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. At best it would rate as information that should be on the main album article. -- Whpq 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So all notable tracks must be singles? Is that right? I don't think so. Because alot of the songs on this album stand out, despite never being released as singles (this statement not being just my opinion). You say this track isn't notable? Well I couldn't disagree more. White Zombie uses many audio samples in many of their songs and this track in particular represents that individual trait, a trait for which they were somewhat known for. Merge into the main album article you say? Well, I believe the information placed in the main album article is specifically for the album alone. The information I have given for the track, however, is specifically about track, which may conveniantly be placed under the page specifically for the song (Knuckle Duster (Radio 2-B)) to prevent a clutter on the main album page, which I do not wish to see). People visit this site to learn about what they are seeking (or at least I do...). If one visits this site with the intention of gaining knowledge about this song, then all the info they need could be right here for them. I am just trying to make it easier for people. -- Soul Crusher 02:15, 25 November 2006

All quite valid points, however the current attempts at formulating a notability guideline on the matter certainly tend to come down more heavily on the side of singles than album tracks, unless the album track is something like "Stairway to Heaven". It's that particular proposed guideline to which I'm referring when I say "notable", rather than anything else. In terms of the band using audio samples, I'll agree that that's a distinctive trait, but I'm not convinced that a 25sec compilation of some of these is important just because it demonstrates this trait in action. As far as a merge goes, perhaps the idea would be to add a section to the main album article listing the various samples used and then add that these particular 4 samples are on this track, these 3 are on a different track and so on. If done well, it would hardly clutter up the album's page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If this particluar track was a particular example of the sampling that media and critics consistently singled out as an example, then by citing these sources, one can establish the notability that has been claimed. But failing that, picking this one track as an example is one editor's opinion, and does not meet WP:V. -- Whpq 21:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merege into La Sexorcisto: Devil Music, Vol. 1 Although guidelines on songs are hazy and uncertain, an album track is generally only notable seperatly from an album if it has received attention in the media for being particularly good (or for some other quality), or if it has been used in film/advertisements. This song hasn't done any of those things. That said, there's info about the song and as 'redirects are cheap', I don't see why we couldn't merge anything relevant into the album's page. Robdurbar 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already deleted (CSD A7) by Metros232 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asher Luke Heimermann

Took me a (little) while to realise that this as actually just a schoolkid, taking part in one of those "student politics" thingies. Google search for "Asher Luke Heimermann" gives 0 hits. Non-notable, article created by an spa yandman 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Asher+Heimermann%2C+Sheboygan+Wisconsin

All I see is this article, blogs, and a user page talking about him that will be blanked too. yandman

Comment: Asher Heimermann was deleted and protected from recreation, nominating this one for G4. yandman 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, but probably not speedy. G4 is for "reposted content that was deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion", and I don't see any XfD discussion in the logs. Sandstein 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asher_Heimermann. yandman 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt the article and block both user accounts, my assumed good faith just got trampled by the high school kid. This is outright vandalism. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and salt. Asher's active interest in politics at the age of 13 is commendable. But this is a recreation of a deleted article, and the reasons for the deletion were clearly communicated to him on User talk:Asher Heimermann. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was not-quite-speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. --Core desat 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbophobia

Fixing incomplete AfD - neutral. Demiurge 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"SERBOPHOBIA & BOSNIAKOPHOBIA"

In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Wikipedia content). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion in the past etc, but nobody deleted it. Now, people want to delete Bosniakophobia. I contest the deletion of Bosniakophobia and suggest - if you want to delete Bosniakophobia, then you should also delete Serbophobia. Since you haven't deleted Serbophobia, please keep your hands away from Bosniakophobia. Let's play it fair.

Either delete both or don't delete any.

Here is an excerpt of some of discussion about this article dating back to December 2005 (by Asim Led):

This word ( Serbophobia )does not deserve an article of its own, it’s a term devised for explicitly political purposes during the late 80s and early 90s. It can not be compared to "Russophobia" or "Islamophobia" because both of these deal with prevalent general social attitudes against ethnic and religious groups based on their culture and heritage. The term Serbophobia, on the other hand, is used virtually exclusively in a political context, in either an accusatory manner or as a justification. To say that it is "comparatively" as common as the term "Russophobia" is ridiculous, and based on some shady calculation certain users made involving army size and GDP. A simple Google search shows that the term "Russophobia" is far, far more common than "Serbophobia". Of the results that do show up on Google, I think they adequately manifest the nature of this term and exactly why it does not belong on Wikipedia. Of the initial 10 results that come up on the first page: The #1 result is the respective Wikipedia article 2 come from a radical right political site 6 of them come from the same two Serbian political writers and analysts. 1 comes from a book on Serbian propaganda efforts during the late 80s and early 90s If this all wasn't enough, the single legitimate source provided has been completely misinterpreted. The quote reads as follows: "Furthering this incipient nation-fever was the extraordinary memorandum issued to the public in 1986 by the prestigious Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, condemning the perceived presence of "Serbophobia" in the central government of Yugoslavia." The use of this as a reference for some traditional use of the term would be fine and dandy if the word wasn’t placed in quotes; but it is. This is because the author views the term with skepticism and questions its validity, implying (just as Dado mentioned) that the word was used by Serb officials to drum up support amongst the populace for their nationalist policies. I challenge any neutral observer to read the context of the word, notice the tone of the passage, read the preceding paragraphs, and not reach the same conclusion as I did[2].

Bosniak 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Very strong keep - this reeks of WP:POINT ("if you want to delete Bosniakophobia, then you should also delete Serbophobia"). For what it's worth Bosniakophobia probably should be deleted, as it gets precisely ZERO hits in Google.[28] Also, just because the article has been nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully) twice before, that doesn't mean it should have been deleted ("Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion in the past etc, but nobody deleted it"). Furthermore, there are 1,250 Google hits when you search for "serbophobia -wikipedia -wiki" (i.e. when Wikipedia is eliminated).[29] Granted, many are useless rubbish, but there are also many reputable sources in there. Finally, it's not clear why this being nominated for a third time (!) when no new arguments have been presented. // Еstavisti 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The article has proper cites and several relevant internal and external links. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - After reviewing the content of Bosniakophobia, its deletion discussion, and further comments made here, it's simply not possible to accept this as a good-faith nomination. This is clearly an attempt to make a point. If it is possible to Speedy Delete an AfD, this should be Speedied immediately to prevent further disruption. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, WP:POINT nomination. Weregerbil 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, as per above, this nomination's only purpose was to make a point. These types of disruptions should be speedy kept to discourage this type of behavior in the future. // Laughing Man 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The person that nominated this for deletion is Serbophobic himself (just check his user page), so this nomination for deletion is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. This appears to be a well-established term; I suspect the nomination is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —Psychonaut 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, while not a well known term it would appear that this term has some background to it. I believe the suggestion for deletion was made in order to make a point.Osli73 19:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

- - NOTE: This page was just vandalized by 216.86.99.194 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) whose edit changed several "Keeps", and their associated comments, into "Deletes". Bosniak restored the vandalism after it had been reverted. This needs to be watched. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Invented word, it returns over 1000 words on Google and all of them are from Wikipedia's scrapper sites. Bosniak 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) *copied in by Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (no need for duplicate voting, as nominator we know where Bosniak's feelings on the article are already BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

KEEP Very well documented usage of this word in the eastern country. This should be there to explain that reality. Terveetkadet

Delete. For me the entire article and the word per se seems like a propagandistic Arkanoid atempt to make people in the Western World “think twice about criticizing Serb ultranationalism”, and a try to “glue” the “concept of Serbophobia” (that includes, according to the article, any questioning about Bosnia’s Republika Srpska) to things like racism or homophobia. And the entire article is an extense piece of a so propagandistic yext that even in a section called “Criticism” there are positive opinions! My opinion is: dump the entire article. It’s a ridiculous piece of original propaganda wording that doesn’t deserve to be in Wikipedia.--MaGioZal 08:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - MaGioZal, I think you can learn alot from this article based on your recent edit history and comments. I think you are the epitome of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. //Laughing Man 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Well, in my vision I’m just trying to edit some articles to make them less distant from the perceptions of the average rest of the world’s media and scholars opinions.--MaGioZal 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

KEEP, we've talked about this before, I think this is the third vote... I think someone just wants this page deleted regardless of the fact that the community has decided to keep this article so many times. --Svetislav Jovanović 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
~~DELETE~~ You stated that Bosniakophobia is not an English word? Well, Serbophobia is also not an English word. It is NOT located in English dictionary. In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Wikipedia content!). Serbophobia is totally invented word and it spread to internet via Wikipedia because thousands of other sites are using copies of wikipedia's content. This should not be tolerated and this article should be deleted ASAP for factual and fairness purposes. Bosniak 07:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (duplicate "vote" deleted, but the comment itself is a viable contribution BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

Response: Tom Friedman used the word Serbophobia in the New York Times [30] on October 11, 1995, more than five years before Wikipedia existed:

"But then the German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, acting on the long love affair between Germany and Croatia (and traditional German Serbophobia), told the E.C. that Germany would recognize Croatia by Christmas 1991 -- no matter what." (TimesSelect membership required to read the article.)

Friedman didn't find it necessary to define the term; he apparently assumed it was commonly understood. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are even earlier examples from Usenet. According to a Google Groups search for "Serbophobia", someone used the term in a post on 4 July 1991. The term also gets 26 hits on Google Scholar, showing that it's used in academic literature. —Psychonaut 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if you'd never heard the term before, you would understand what Serb + phobia meant. So the fact that he didn't need to explain it doesn't prove much. Demiurge 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although he might have put the word in quotes if he thought he was inventing a neologism. The use of the word in the NYTimes five years before Wikipedia existed doesn't help Bosniak's argument that the word was invented and spread through Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Bad, BAD faith.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep It seems the nominator only nominated this article for deletion because an article he started has been nominated for deletion. He seems to be a bad faith, POV warrior. - Ivan K
Speedy keep nomination is a bad faith WP:POINT... block lister for 48hrs while your at it... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was blocked for seven days for vote tampering here. Not that I would object to someone extending the block another two days… —Psychonaut 10:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep - an absolutely blatant bad faith nomination. Author needs an indef block, looking over contribs. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Bosniak, who nommed this article, has been blocked one week per discussions at ANI here, if you would support a longer block, feel free to contribute to the discussion. Doc Tropics 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep for reasons said before: what's taking so long? RFerreira 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoe of Destruction

This article is about a magic weapon which appeared in a single installment of the Ultima series and was not integral to the plot. There are dozens of such weapons, and probably at least ten in Ultima VII alone. Not at all notable. —Psychonaut 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this might merit a mention in one of the main articles, but certainly not notable enough to warrant its own. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Ultima VII as the information itself is valid, and may be of interest to some folks. Mister.Manticore 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Merge - I told them to delete it months ago but they started whining about how their fancruft was too important for a merge. The page is mostly plot summary. Some guy 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't mean merge the whole article, just the description of the weapon. So that's really not much of a merge. Some guy 06:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete and Don't Merge Blatant Gameguide article. There are scores, even hundreds of hidden secrets/special weapons in a game like Ultima VII, which also has a huge plot with scores of characters each with their little backstory. Merging this with the main game article would suggest listing every single special secret and each character - again, unencyclopedic and heading off to gameguidesville. Bwithh 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm the original creator of this article. Let me put it this way: I was young and needed mo... er, well, something. =) I certainly wouldn't create an article like this today. Just a few days ago, I was contemplating on maybe something like "List of items of Ultima series" or something, which would list notable and memorable items from the series. A list article would be the sane way to handle items that just appear in one part of the series. (We already merged The Companions of the Avatar previously, in similar vein.) Hoe of Destruction is unique to Ultima VII part 1, therefore in my opinion, it's merge material - but in this case, it would need a chainsaw-trimming and the list article in question doesn't exist yet. The item is unique to the series, and certainly an unique item considering all CRPGs, but I don't think those facts alone save it. It's like Victory Gin. So as the primary author of the article, I don't mind if it gets deleted now; it would be largely rewritten anyway when and if I ever get around to creating that item list article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as per parent. It's amusing to see it here, of course, but it'd be better to see this on the strategy wikis. The Doom reference is notable, but let's face it... this ain't no dopefish. :D –Gunslinger47 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and don't merge. The existence of this weapon is probably worthy of noting in an article like List of weapons in Ultima, but the backstory is utterly unimportant. Nothing in this article can be salvaged except for its title. —Psychonaut 12:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and don't merge -- Whpq 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP I mean come on guys, it's the HOE OF DESTRUCTION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.169.90.2 (talk • contribs) .
- It is, and that's why I felt it needed an article back in the day, and that's why I feel it's worth mentioning (in an abridged form) in an another article in due time. I just feel it's worth starting over. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Although this has got to be the coolest sounding weapon I have ever heard of, it has little importance outside the series. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete before someone attempts to redirect it to a female person they don't like. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blowback Operated Minigun

OR no sources other than a webforum. No google hits other than webforums. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22blowback+operated+minigun%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N Megapixie 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. L0b0t 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. D.E. Watters 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was game over. I mean, already deleted by Mailer diablo. --Core desat 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The game of Drink

Submitted in conjunction with another discussion for The Game Of Drink. Article is effectively a duplicate and is equally non-notable.

--Dennisthe2 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 23:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The game of Delete Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete reminds me of my favorite drinking game (also non-notable and stupid); C-Span; drink heavily and watch C-Span. Rever e ndG 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Proto::type 10:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MUGEN NoE

Tagged WP:CSD A7, but not an obvious delete so I'm bringing it here. Not sure if it's significant or not, I guess it may be a case of come back when there is more external coverage, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

delete - Not enough notable. There are a huge list of consortia of the various of the european research framework programmes. Consortia are per se not notable. The results are maybe relevant in the relevant wiki-article. -- Cate 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

keep it Please note that this consortium has done a significant scientific work. Please check the publication list of the MUGEN participating people at [31] , there are 473 original research articles in high impact journals such us Nature & Science, Thanks User:Afantitis

Comment 1: You should write *'''Keep''' - Your comments... . ~~~~, see How to discuss an AfD for more infos. This is a discussion to find if the article should be deleted or not, so I reccomend you to write your motivations. (and for personal comments, please use my talk page). Later I will comment on your comment, but I hope that administrators will extend the discussion period. Cate 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for keep it

the MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

MUGEN aims to:

1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics).

2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues.

user Afantitis

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

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

The result was Closing, my mistake. There appears to be a nest of these on CAT:CSD, part of a spam campaign by the property company. They can, I think, get lost. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metrocenter Mall (Mississippi)

Generic malls. Tagged A7 but doesn't really apply. I don't know what the current consensus is on malls, so will leave it to the tender mercies of AfD, with my personal recommendation to delete since no non-trivial sources are cited. Having found and added a second one, perhaps this is a spamming campaign. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solange: The Beginning(album)

Unsourced, probably unverifiable (zero ghits for "Solange: The Beginning"), album supposedly scheduled for release some time next year. Previous supposed name for this future album was In My Heart. Donald Albury 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No mention of the coming album on her official site or her MySpace, remove per "crystal ball". Caknuck 07:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Complete crystal ballery. -- Kicking222 14:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toneless

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Not a notable band. --18 hours 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC -- Whpq 16:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not (yet) notable -- Cate 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacial Ghost

I just don't know what to make of this article. It hurts my head to try to read. I can't even put my finger on what it is to find an appropriate standard for it to meet. WP:MUSIC would probably be it. There are no sources given at all for this article even though the author said s/he'd provide some on its talk page a month ago. Nonsense article on a non-notable band, maybe? Metros232 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, self-promotional rubbish. Giveaway phrases include multiple uses of "speculated", "rumoured", "enigmatic", "supposedly", "unsubstantiated", "conflicting stories" Demiurge 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I barely understand what this article is supposed to be about. — The Gr e at Llama^moo? 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I'm sorry if you feel that this article is not up to snuff. I've spent a good deal of time researching and documenting things about this group who I saw perform here in Berlin in 2004. I don't really know them personally, but I've contacted them since I started trying to write material for this article and asked them questions. Their actual name is a drawing and so it's very hard to search for information on them online, but I've tried. A lot of the information is from zines interviews I've read which are not published on the internet. I'm also very new to wikipedia and I'm not on the computer as much as a lot of you are so I can only devote a certain amount of time to learning how to format and footnote things, but I tried to footnote some things from the portion of information which came from the Artists Space website. Artists Space is surely a reputable source as it's been an important non-profit art space in New York City since the 1970s. I will work more on this article to try and make it more neutral, if that is the problem. I am just trying to make it comprehensive and accurate. I can heavily edit it, or you can edit it if you do the correct research, but I feel like you are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing anything at all about the subject matter, or even about experimental music, noise, and contemporary project based-art. For subjects which do not have a lot of internet information about them, I feel like wikipedia is a great resource. If this page is deleted, you're creating a catch 22. I've put a lot of my own time and energy into this article because I think that this group warrants it. I know that there are thousands of people who have seen this group perform or own their albums or have read their writings who have felt affected and inspired the same way that I did.

I also understand that part of what makes wikipedia so great is that it is heavily edited, ending up with entries that are as accurate as possible. So, I'm not offended that this be proposed for deletion even though I've worked hard on it thus far and even though I know that a lot of editors like to rack up "Number of deletions" on their profile pages. Please try to do some more research of your own before discrediting mine, and I'll attempt to get more references together and properly footnote them. I can remove things which seem too much like speculation and whittle it down to something more digestible. Hopefully you'll allow me this. Thanks! - Anette

Delete Seems pretty clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Amusing though (secret monastry cave only accessible to the inner circle etc) Bwithh 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, and the editor contactng the group, may or may not be original research depending on what was being asked and then added to the article. -- Whpq 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per whpq
keep i've been trying to understand the criteria for WP:music and especially the touring requirement. this band has gone on several full u.s. tours (by googling "glacial ghost" tour, on the first page alone there were listings for shows in richmond, reno, st louis and seattle {to support Calvin Johnson}) as well as international tours. they have been a part of the new england/providence/new york experimental/noise/folk scenes for years now, playing with lightning bolt, Tiny Hawks, Black Dice, No Neck Blues Band, Wooden Wand and the Vanishing Voice and a ton of others. the problem is they are hard to talk about because their name is a drawing, and they change their subtitle name with every project. and they do not neatly fit into the usual definition of band. their work extends beyond music to artwork, gallery shows, videos, books, etc. i agree that this article needs some editing and sourcing, but i think that's all. it is still possible for bands to function and be "notable" without a serious internet presence, as well as maintaining a vehemently diy work ethic. booking agents, mass media coverage, i see how these things are simple guages of tour "signifigance", but i would argue that they cannot be the only factors. and i absolutely see how this becomes an issue in the context of wikipedia, and that verifiability is the crux of it all, and what makes this place what it is. i guess that's my say in this.Swc 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Swc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per Demiurge. WMMartin 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multimon

Seems to be a Pokemon-type idea made up by the article author. No sources are given or even alluded to. Google searches like multimon "multiple monsters", multimon egg and multimon Xyclone turn up nothing. (There are lots of results for "multimon" because the name is used for software, etc.) Looks like it violates WP:NFT. FreplySpang 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also including Multimon egg in this nomination. FreplySpang 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Agreed, complete nonsense, google shows nothing, and no citations are given ShakingSpirit^talk 00:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete appears to be original research. Demiurge 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original...somethingoranother. The article now in fact admits to being the product of the author's imagination. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete both per CSD G1 (nonsense) G3 (silly vandalism) and G7 (author wants articles to go bye-bye) Tubezone 01:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
G1, G3, and G7 like the idea of speedy delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedichu I choose you per Tubezone. Danny Lilithborne 03:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Infinite LP

[edit] Patriarchal society

[edit] Robert z. kaplan

[edit] Aric Van Halen

[edit] Guest Enemies in the Powerpuff Girls

[edit] Indie role-playing game (computer and video games)

[edit] List of musical works in unusual time signatures

[edit] Generalized Pitchers Rating

[edit] Nabs

[edit] CadStd

[edit] Aabcomp

[edit] Rovism

[edit] Jikoshia

[edit] Joe The Circle

[edit] Niccolò Casini

[edit] Adam Gadnis

[edit] Hell from here

[edit] DIHMRS

[edit] Prelude to Darkness

[edit] Colchester Bus Station

[edit] Lee Harvey

[edit] 2000-2001 Demos

[edit] Neko the Kitty

[edit] Jazz Age Chronicles

[edit] TS-MA2 Moebius

[edit] autocentrism

[edit] Arch Coal

[edit] Jewish Supremacy

[edit] Josh Teyler

[edit] Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

[edit] Steve.museum

[edit] The Amazing Race

[edit] Asher Heimermann

[edit] Goodson, Virginia

[edit] Himbo

[edit] Ben Hale

[edit] SMil-Norge

[edit] Floro Fighting System

[edit] Eds Easy Diner

[edit] Water Crisis (Australia)

[edit] Emergent philosophy

[edit] Box

[edit] ChaosZero Ultimate Installer

[edit] Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

[edit] Dark Lord

[edit] List of Austrian footballers

[edit] List of Belgian footballers

[edit] List of footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina

[edit] List of Croatian footballers

[edit] Paulo Benevides

[edit] Hristo Tsanoff

[edit] Hydrogen power pack

[edit] Bowling Centre MRT Line

[edit] Henna gaijin

[edit] Identical cousin

[edit] The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization

[edit] List of Half-Life mods

[edit] List of notable LiveJournal users

[edit] Wojciech Plocharski

[edit] John Powers (poet)

[edit] Daring Armstrong

[edit] Liverpool Football Zone

[edit] British International School of Cracow

[edit] $10

[edit] PCSX

[edit] Arutam

[edit] Dolores morcillo

[edit] Panic prevention disco

[edit] Paranormal vanishing

[edit] Across Indiana

[edit] Eagle Spirit Ministry

[edit] Mayford Football Club

[edit] Faff

[edit] Real Dominus Bate F.C.

[edit] To brunt

[edit] The Wussy Boy Manifesto

[edit] David Andrew Thompson