Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 1 October 3 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic4gl

Poorly written article about non-notable computer programming software. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-Creator Notice Hi, it's 'Matthew' from the Basic4GL Forum here, there seems to be some problems with the Basic4GL Wikipedia entry so I'm going to try and deal with them here if that's alright.

I only got involved in the 'Basic4GL Wikipedia entry project' Yesterday.

1.) I've removed the Tags beneath the Images which were directing people to the Basic4GL Site in order to Download Games created in Basic4GL.

2.) I'd forgotten to add the GFDL Copyright Tag to the 'Flymass' Image, this has been rectified.

3.) I've added a Link to the History of the BASIC Programming Language.

4.) Some of you have questioned the Importence of Basic4GL in the 'Realm' of Programming Languages, I'd just like to draw your attention to another BASIC programming Language which has a Site on Wikipedia FreeBasic. If FreeBasic has a Site then I really can't see why Basic4GL can't.

5.) Just discovered that BlitzBasic a Commercial version of the BASIC Programming Language is on Wikipedia, surely their Site reads more like an Advertisement than our's does. --Visi calc 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 'Matthew Basi4GL Forum' --Visi calc 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 'Updated by Matthew' — Visi calc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Creator Before it was messed up and needed an expert so we are in the process of making the article better written so hang on! an also heres some stuff that might stop you thinking its non notible http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/basic.shtml http://forums.halodev.org/lofiversion/index.php?t561.html http://basic.mindteq.com/Details/Basic4GL.html http://www.klikforever.co.uk/tutorials.php?action=view&id=1 http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3303 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=202166 --Madcow 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I agree, this is sick... I've seen tons of less "notable" programming languages out there. And Matthew is correct... If FreeBasic can have an article, why not Basic4GL? Basic4GL is free too... And BASIC... I have personally witnessed Basic4GL's deletion from wikipedia three times now... None of which were advertising and I fail to see how this isn't considered "notable" when compared to some of the other programming languages on here. FreeBASIC/Free pascal/Euphoria/FASM... I have tried all of those and I can't see how any of them are more "notable" -David — 70.104.113.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Non-notable, advert, all that. Also, to Visi Calc - Pointing to articles that you feel are less notable than this isn't a defense. The only result of that is that it's now really likely that the FreeBasic article will get AfD'd as well. --PresN 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Basic4gl is a great new programming language for beginners and it deserves recognition. I've noticed the language bieng mentioned in a wide variety of discussion forums lately: it is gaining popularity and support. I see no logical reason to deny people information on Basic4gl, and patrons of Basic4gl and Wikipedia would be dissapointed at such an act. "Notability" is no criteria on which to base this decision, and if it were, a lack of notability should be an arguement for keeping Basic4gl here. Is the goal of Wikipedia only to regurgitate widely available, notable information? Should information on Basic4gl not be available from Wikipedia simply because it's not widely available elsewhere? — 140.211.24.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Message to PresN You've had Six Months to Delete the FreeBASIC Article on Wikipedia. I've noticed you haven't done it yet.--Visi calc 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Matthew
  • Delete I hate advert articles. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and ignore the SPA/IP's above. Daniel.Bryant 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is nuts! Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with Victor Lighthill. The spamtastic nature of the BlitzBasic article doesn't justify keeping this; it justifies deleting the BlitzBasic article. The FreeBasic article can be moved to the OSS Wikia. —ptk✰fgs 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting notability requirements in WP:SOFTWARE. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To any one who wanted this delted becuase it was an advertisement. your reason tecnicaly is not vlid becuase all you had to do is add the advertisment template like so {{advertisment}} - --83.104.170.71 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment That's only appropriate if an editor believes that a worthwhile article can be salvaged on the subject. Fan-1967 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


well looks like the editor has. --Madcow 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. If Basic4GL is being declared as non-notable and/or not meeting the proposed WP:SOFTWARE, how many articles in Category:BASIC programming language family are you going to list for AfD? The article also appears (to me at least) to be less of an advertisement after substituting the second pronoun. —LOL 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whispering(talk/c) 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women Fully Clothed

Originally {{prod}}ded as nn; prod tag was removed by possible SPA 71.203.231.148 with the edit summary "its not like they dont exist". Forgive me if I find that argument less than compelling, so on to a full-blown AfD we go. Subject is nn; article is a WP:OR violation written in a wildly unencyclopedic manner; roughly half the sentences contain WP:WEASEL violations; and not one word of it is properly cited besides the fact that the group exists at all. Also, while Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) is only a proposal at this point, I will note that this comedy troupe fails nine of the ten criteria currently listed, and for that tenth one it does pass, Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) suggests that the article name instead be used as a redirect to the name of the troupe's most prominent cast member and listed as a side project on his/her page. Needless to say, I think this adds up to a big old Delete. Aaron 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to weak keep based on Roninbk's excellent cleanup. I still don't think they meet the proposed comedy guidelines, but they're close enough. --Aaron 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but re-write - The article is mostly a re-hash of their about page, bordering on copyvio, but the comedy group is not only real, but seems to be fairly notable as touring comedy groups go. A few useful links that I found: review in NOW Magazine, Awards show entry on IMDB that mentions their nomination, I even found one place where a member was introduced in an acting context as "from Women Fully Clothed" [1].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harmil (talk • contribs).
    • I'm gonna go ahead and add those links in, and give it a rough sanding of the prickly points. --Roninbk t c # 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I've cleaned up the article significantly. It now passes Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) on three counts, (multiple non-trivial published works, members otherwise notable, and featured in major comedy festival) I've stripped the POV, killed the weasels, and added stub categories. I hope that this article can now be saved from deletion. KEEP --Roninbk t c # 05:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Derex 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Note how I avoided making a pun on "stripped". D'oh. JIP | Talk 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good cleanup, team. Andrewa 10:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite is good, sources are cited and text is definitely encyclopedic and verifiable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite is good.-- danntm T C 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never heard of them, but the participants are certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep now that the nomination has been withdrawn. --Hyperbole 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above.UberCryxic 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Yavanov

Does not seems to be Notable. Cannot find any Google references about the author or his book abakharev 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmocon

Non notable. No references for the book besides Wikipedia and its mirrors abakharev 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Alexandra Chronicles

Delete. A local newspaper. Article does not reveal any circulation numbers or any sources that might substantiate notability. "Alexandra Chronicles" gets 34 Google hits, where one of them might possibly be relevant but probably not. ... discospinster talk 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable per nom. -Harmil 01:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 02:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "...was created in September 2004 and has developed quite an impressive fan base..." - Unless a source can be found to verify this, it fails WP:V, Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody suicide gang

Delete. Subject does not meet WP:MUSIC with one self-produced album. Only 26 unique Google results and nothing on AllMusic. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom -Harmil 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. When a myspace is your official website, you don't deserve your own wikipedia page.--aviper2k7(talk) 00:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Law & Policy Review

This is, at the moment, a non-notable law review. There are no substantial references in the article itself, and the 8 unique search results add nothing. It's rather ironic to nominate a law review for deletion -- you'd think that if this article has been generated by those involved, they would understand why this article is not acceptable for this project right now. Erechtheus 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/Merge to American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, although they have a section on it already. Zero hits on Factiva, zero hits on Google Scholar. This journal may in future become sufficiently encyclopedically notable for its own article, but let's not be premature here. Bwithh 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete founded only this year. Basically promotional. Derex 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate in five to ten years, maybe. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge a brand new law journal is unlikely to be notable.-- danntm T C 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merger necessary, per nom. It's spam. --Aaron 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to the society article. Gazpacho 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS Schedule Variations

Violates WP:OR and WP:NOT a television schedule. Kirjtc2 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm only trying to inform the public of timing variations... Is that too much to ask??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 8:58 PM EDT
  • Comment Maybe, yes. Why should the public be learning of "timing variations" from an encyclopedia? And gosh darn it, it certainly should not be a seperate article! -- Gwern (contribs) 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, it is too much to ask. WP is not a television guide, and if the public wants to know when this show is on, they can check their TV Guide. Resolute 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait! Before you do that!!! What do you suggest I do??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 9:31 PM EDT
  • I recommend that you accept that this article will not survive, and not take it personaly. Topics like this are not candidates for articles, no matter how well intentioned they are. Why would anyone care about this information in the long term? Resolute 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sad, because Wikiscripps 07 has obviously put some work into this, but I sure don't know where we could put it without violating a guideline. --Aaron 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And btw, those kids are hella annoying. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think a 'check local listings' note in the KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS article works just as well, this article is over-crufty, confusing, and unneeded. 4Kids TV also airs on multiple stations/timeslots, and we have no article on that because it isn't needed. Nate 02:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Per Nate, "check local listings" would be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reconsider. I was only trying to help!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN OCT 1 2006 11:02 PM EDT
    • Comment clearly some considerable effort went into this. It's not really a suitable entry _here_, but I hope the author will find another place to post this on the web. Derex 06:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia just isn't the place for this. Sorry. BTLizard 08:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above, Wikipedia is not a television guide (WP:NOT) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom StuartDouglas 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT but Merge into KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS in very abridged form, perhaps just the bit of text do not air at the same time on all CBS stations, even though promotional material and ratings data give a "uniform" national time. The time slots for these programs varies by market. Because of this, KOL's official site does not give specific times for their programs, therefore urging viewers to check local listings for time and channel. --Hyperbole 16:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible Solution: Could I at least relocate the article here before you delete it??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 MON OCT 2 2006 3:30 PM EDT
  • Comment The KOL in this case stands for "Kids Online", AOL's children's service, sorry for the confusion. Nate 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute Delete per all above.UberCryxic 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom TheRanger 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. As noted above, however, I do hope there can be another site where the article's contents can go to. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Caldorwards4 06:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Robert Pangborn

Unnotable usenet poster. Fails WP:BIO. Similiar article deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Pangborn, but never had a full afd discussion. Thus, its shouldn't be speedied. If deleted, these pages should be protected from re-creation. Arbusto 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete lessee... a rape threat, a few awards from net.kooks, and a fake diploma? Nothing there to suggest he is even close to Mentifex or Timecube levels. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy and speedy it quick Probably libelous. Clearly a hit piece. "There is much controversy over whether Pangborn's services are of any value", "Diploma mill", etc. Look at the name of the only reference. I'd indef block the poster too for a clear and intentional WP:BLP violation, since he's got essentially no constructive contributions. Derex 06:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Its clear this is at least the third time this has been deleted, but it should be fully reviewed with the afd so we can speedy it in the future. --Arbusto 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't just leave a BLP violation up for people to chat about. The concern is a legal one. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. That describes the _entire_ article. Jimbo says there "I can NOT emphasize this enough. .... It should be removed, aggressively" Derex 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just removed everything obvious. Now the main problem is that the whole remaining article is unverifiable without a bunch original research. Derex 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any claim to notablility here, personally I think this is half-way between db-bio and db-repost. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, and I certainly wouldn't oppose a Speedy either. Article at time of AFD was a clear attack page, and once the attack stuff has been taken out there's very little left (and it's still unreferenced, to boot!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the earth for both this article and Kenneth Pangborn, per all problems noted above. --Aaron 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt as above, clearly misses WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, not notable SkerHawx 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.usenet.kooks

Article does not assert notablity per WP:WEB and things like criticism aren't sourced. In 2005 another afd voted keep many asking for clean up. Arbusto 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see what has changed since then. I'm not sure cleanup is actually warranted, but last I heard simply being in cleanup wasn't enough. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
How does it pass WP:WEB? It reads: 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2) The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. 3) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Arbusto 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this newsgroup is very notable on the Internet. Admittedly it probably doesn't pass WP:WEB, but it's still notable and ought to be in an internet encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only if cleaned up before close of discussion, otherwise delete. I don't think WP:WEB applies here, as Usenet exists outside of (and greatly predates) the World Wide Web. And there's no question that alt.usenet.kooks meets notability based purely on its role in Internet history. However, I'm not a big fan of articles that are given almost a year to get cleaned up but then never are. If nobody's willing to bring it up to spec, it should be deleted. --Aaron 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "needs to be cleaned up" is not a criterion for deletion. There are plenty of articles in far worse shape, many of which have been in worse shape for longer periods of time. There isn't a deadline at which all of Wikipedia's content gets shipped off to the printers, after all, what's the harm in taking our time? Bryan 06:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, apparently "taking our time" is quite similar to "never gets done" Bwithh 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Past a certain point, the fact that a cleanup tag goes unheeded is itself inherent evidence that perhaps the subject isn't as Wikiworthy as we'd like to believe. In such a case, it may be preferable to simply delete the article without prejudice, so that someone else may come along later and produce a better article from scratch. And if nobody ever does, well ... --Aaron 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A newsgroup is not a web site, so WP:WEB may not be easily applicable. And in any event this particular newsgroup happens to be one of the more significant bits of Usenet culture. Bryan 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per consensus in previous AfD, I don't see how it has changes since. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and hopefully a cleanup after one long year. Notable in the internet world and deserves an article on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. Gamaliel 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Provide proper references and cleanup before the end of afd or else, delete as per Aaron. After 10 months or so since last afd - no claims to notability, no verifiable reliable sources, failure of WP:WEB. Apparently we're just going on the hearsay of people. This is VERY bad precedent for other articles. We've already made a huge exception for this article. I don't see why we should have infinite patience for it, especially if "we'll take our time over cleanup/it'll get cleaned up eventually" actually means nothing gets done about critical issues. Bwithh 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Google suggests the subject is notable and there should be enough out there to verify all these claims that someone apparently just rattled off from memory. --Hyperbole 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books btw. This is hardly The WELL. Bwithh 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Even The WELL would probably only have a 50-50 chance of survival if anyone cleaned out the Wikipedia:Walled garden hagiographical parts of it and put it up for AfD. --Aaron 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, nonsense. The WELL was an important virtual community (not so much today), and has had entire books devoted to it. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • "Not so much today" is kind of my point. If there had been a Wikipedia in 1992 and someone nominated The WELL, it would have been closed as a blatantly bad-faith nomination within about 90 seconds. But in 2006? It's more like "Oh yeah, the WELL. I remember them; they're still around? Wow..." If someone quietly slapped a {{prod}} tag on it, there's an off chance it might get deleted before anyone else that cared even noticed. As for the books, they were all written by longstanding WELL members, so someone could argue they're just part of the self-referential walled garden, and time has passed and the WELL hasn't kept up, etc. (I'm just speaking of it as a potential WP:CCC example; I have no intention of putting it up for AfD.) --Aaron 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not-notable. If this was really such an important part of internet history (whatever that is) surely some reliable source would have written about it? Recury 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I struggle to discern anything in the article which even begins to suggest notability - a place where 'kooky' usenet posts are discussed? Let's see some sources. --Nydas 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Aaron and Bwithh. Valrith 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' AUK is one of the groups that most of Usenet knows, due to the *ahem* strong personalities that get brought to it. (and I haven't even gotten started on the Kooks!) I'll take a look and see if I can update it. SirFozzie 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely an important part of Net Culture. Whether "Net Culture" itself is all that important is a separate issue, but if it's covered, this belongs. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:WEB (even if it's not entirely on the web). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable, clean enough for me. Not sure what the beef is. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geek license

Delete. Non notable meme; crufty-licious WP:NEO --- RockMFR 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete on the grounds of WP:NEO. --Tarret 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTABLE and above. Hello32020 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would require a lot more references to convince me. (Anyway, it's self-explanatory; you'll never see it out of context.) --Masamage 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO Computerjoe's talk 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Masamage; realistically, no one's ever going to say "My geek license has been revoked? What on earth is a geek license? I need to look that up on Wikipedia!" IOW, the article is worthless. --Hyperbole 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • BJAODN If they have to look it up on Wikipedia, then perhaps the revocation is justified (Ba-Dum-Bump) --Roninbk t c # 20:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hee hee. (But what's BJAODN? Bye, acronymist's license...) --Masamage 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:NFT. I've already put it into BJAODN, so this will be immortalized.-- danntm T C 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable internet meme. THE KING 07:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per THE KING It's a notable internet meme! Let's keep 'em all! Collect them all kids! That's what Wiki's for. It's for internet memes, oh, and crap, and pokemon, and toys, and crap, and TV, and crap, and commercials. Let's shut down AfD and CSD and PROD, fire the administrators and watch this thing implode! Thank god Wiki won't last another five years. Billy Blythe 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should keep your WP:POINT antics to yourself. If you can't, the door is that-a-way. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per obviousness and above users' comments. Wickethewok 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - definitely notable - over 100k Google hits for this and its synonyms - and since when was "obviousness" a reason for deletion ? Gandalf61 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe Wickethewok was referring to WP:SNOWBALL, as in the case of most neologisms. And I'd like to know the search terms you used to get 100k, I get 218 unique Ghits off of geek license --Roninbk t c e # 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I got over 100k hits searching for "geek" and "revoke" to capture the synonyms. That count could be inflated by crud, so here is a more precise breakdown : "geek license" 4,660 hits; "geek licence" 194 hits; "geek card" 10,300 hits; "geek pass" 416 hits; "geek credentials" 15,100 hits; "geek status" 30,200 hits. That's a total of more than 60k hits. Gandalf61 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Can any of those hits be turned into references? If not, doesn't this become OR? --Masamage 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Keep because I tend to be an inclusionist. Found this article while rolling the dice and I've seen weaker articles than this survive an AfD. JubalHarshaw 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an article on a newologism. Per WP:NEO we require secondary sources about the neologism. None are in the article, none are introduced here. Deletion is therefore the right answer. GRBerry 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Have now added three examplees from media sources to the article - a Mac programming text book, a New York Observer article and a BBC article. Yes, I know they are not secondary sources about the phrase, but are we really saying that a term that the BBC was using five years ago is too new and unusual to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia ?? Gandalf61 09:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Have also added a secondary source reference from Urban Dictionary to the article. Admittedly UD is borderline as a secondary source, but it does have some quality control; recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources did not reach a consensus on excluding it as a reliable source; and there is precedent for citing it as a secondary source in Wikpedia - see race traitor, fashioncore, emo. Gandalf61 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe that general opinion is usually that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it, which is the same reason that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. GRBerry 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. With primary sources or not, there is no reason for this meme to be considered "notable". If you can get a secondary source, add it to Wiktionary.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it meets WP:NEO, move to wikitionary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, UD is not a reliable source, even if the editor trawling on the Reference Desk tried to set it up as such. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Lucas (radio host)

Delete. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Nothing notable turned up on google. Brimba 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The article needs some serious work, but I think this is not beyond saving, as Dave Lucas radio host returns 1.2 million google hits [2], not all from wikipedia mirrors either. I'll take a look through that and introduce inline citations, wikify, etc, and this may be a good article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Delete After putting "dave lucas" in quotation marks [3], I find it returns only 501 results, mostly from blogs and radio guides. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and because the article has no verification whatsoever. --Aaron 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nambiar (Kshatriya)

  • Delete This information provided in this doesn’t give any references to researches or studies done on Nambiar Caste. There is no solid evidence that Kerala Nambiars is belonging to Aryans of North. No reference/study has done on Nambiar caste or kerala. But they historically belongs to Nair caste and doest belong to Khatriya sect of kerala who had migrated from Tamil Nadu Klm nair 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what the justification for the AfD is here - lack of references means it needs cleanup, not deletion. --Jamoche 03:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lack of sources is not a reason to delete, being unverifiable is. Google turned up that both the french and German Wikipedias have articles, which suggests it's notable enough. Time to find sources then. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep  Doctor Bruno  22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a right candidate for Afd.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I am afraid that (in my opinion) this is not similar to Khatri (Kshatriya)  Doctor Bruno  01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: The information given here is complete fiction and nonsense...with absolutely no historical reference or relevance...i am in a position to say so because i have directly verified several facts pertaining to this article from old books itself...so please Delete...examples of wrong facts given here: customs:Upanayanam...this was only for Brahmins in that part of India...the mentioned dynasties etc are all utter fantasy of the author...besides the name of the article itself, Nambiar (Kshatriya) is wrong as Nambiars are part of the Nair caste which is not a Kshatriya caste technically. Manu
  • Keep: As stated above this is not a Quick Deletion article. The problems within the article (there are many) such as the Indo Aryan origin claim must be changed, and the article should not be deleted. I think we can work through the problems presented, on the discussion page, and find a way to best represent the facts.Kshatriya Grandmaster 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: As stated previously, the name of the article ir wrong and that is the first thing to be considered. Change the name and correct the fantastic facts in the article.
  • Delete: Wrong facts mentioned in the article. That is reason enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep: Comments cannot be verified without them being signed, therefore please sign your comments. There are ways to work around these problems presented. We can discuss the title and the contents in the discussion page. In the mean time this article must be kept since, as mentioned above, it does not qualify for a AfD. Kshatriya Grandmaster 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ifrah Warsame

Non-notable model. There's no assertion of notability, it fails the Google test [4] and seems to be a vanity page. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It didn't turn up a 404 for me, but a page on the Names Database (which might as well be a 404, in terms of its quality as a "reference"...) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 04:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Goblin's Last Stand

Non-notable fan film. Delete as vanity. --InShaneee 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment—just wanted to point out that the usual internet notability tests may be misleading for this, because it was produced and first distributed in 1992. Postdlf 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible copyvio from here and a fork of The Green Goblin's Last Stand. No comment as to notability. I heard about it years ago, though. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I added the AFD notice to The Green Goblin's Last Stand as well; the nom above had nothing to do with whether this was a fork or a copyvio. Postdlf 02:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It really should be listed separately... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Why? It's the same content. --InShaneee 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Same subject, different content, and the *The GGLS* article doesn't have copyvio issues. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The AFD nom was based on the subject, not the specific content, notwithstanding how you voted. Copyvios are not handled through AFD. Postdlf 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
              • In that case, Keep - It's a bit light on sources but can be improved. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's poorly written, but I suppose that's not an AFD issue. We keep far kruftier stuff than this. A 1992 film doesn't strike me as likely to be vanity. Tag it for copyvio though. Derex 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I deleted the whole "plot summary" as it was clearly a copyvio (good catch, HelenKMarks), but it looks like this has been around a while and has probably generated significant interest to merit an article. --Hyperbole 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable fan-film, with a separately released documentary on it, and if Stan Lee really commented on it, that'd push it over the top. Mister.Manticore 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into The World of Kong. --Keitei (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong monsters

To start with, most of those creatures are only mentioned in another encyclopedia (The World of Kong), which brings down questions of copyright. If we offer a free alternative, it is a significant threat to the sales of the book. I also have problems with the silly prose, the complete non-notability, and absolutely no hope of expansion (being that they only exist as entries in a fictional encyclopedia). Interrobamf 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for All- I see no real reason to delete these articles. First of all, your request sounds like a bad faith nomination, and, while I don't mean to attack you in any way, you seem to have many references to vandalizing user talk pages and spreading your own ideas. Second, I don't see "a significant threat to the sales of the book" as a viable argument. We have articles about many books, but no one has listed one for deletion based on the fact that it would detract from the book's sales. As for expansion, there will always be a chance for an article to be expanded (images, infoboxes, etc.) I also don't see any "silly prose" that you suggest. I hope this serves as a good argument against your nomination.

bibliomaniac15 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS: By the way, the use of the paleobox in Vastatosaurus rex was allowed by the creator of the paleobox, Kazvorpal, when I asked him. Here's a link: User talk:Kazvorpal.

    • Do you care to back up the existence my so-called "vandalizing"? Besides the incident about fair use images on a user page, which is againist policy, and a situation you clearly don't understand? You also do understand how irrelevant that is to this debate? And that this is hardly a bad faith nomination compared to nominations that simply state "fancruft"?

      Moving beyond that, articles on books don't delve into exact details about their content nor is that even comparable to this situation. It's quite simple. The only information about those fictional species is in the book, which is presented as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia copies all the detail. People now have little reason to buy the book because they can get all the detail (and under your proposition for expansion, images) for free. Do you not realize the threat?Interrobamf 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't realize any threat. For example, no one has listed the articles about the different types of Middle-Earth elves for deletion, just because it would decrease sales of The Silmarillion. No one has even listed them for merge. Also, I really wouldn't consider this fancruft, since these articles are much like the article List of Star Wars creatures, only with more detail. I still hold with keeping, or at least merging into a list. bibliomaniac15 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with The World of Kong. Articles are small enough to combined. --Masamage 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per WP:FICT. Delete would be my second option. King Kruft. :-) Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Pascal & Masamage. No reason to break out individual entries from this work into separate articles... and WP:AGF... there is nothing wrong with this nom; I don't agree with outright deletion here, but the nominator explained their reasoning for the nomination.--Isotope23 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete all. This grossly violates both WP:FICT and Writing about fiction. It uses pseudo-scientific, realistic, long-winded writing about some utterly non-notable fictional objects. --Ekjon Lok 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Isotope. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per other editors. Non-notable creatures that don't deserve their own articles. EVula 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheepstealer clothing

Nomination for Deletion First afd was a speedy keep after no discussion due to an admin perception that the nomination was bad faith/inaccurate[5], though this was also disputed by another admin[6]. I basically agree that the first nom may have been by an inexperienced user who cited the wrong policy (WP:SOAP) in their nomination, and since there was no discussion whatsoever, I don't see the need to go through WP:DRV (though I'm open to suggestions otherwise). I am nominating this as a failure of WP:CORP, particularly bearing in mind that the official stance on acceptance criteria for corporate articles has recently hardened. (See "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation). Patrick calls for a "shoot on sight" policy but given the mixup with the first afd, I decided to re-nominate. Initially I thought this company may be a specialist provider of traditional uniforms to Irish sports teams (possibly some notability if that was true), but it seems from the website that they actually just sell the usual range of t-shirts, hoodies and baseball caps for fans. Also, only about 50 google hits. In addition, the article appears to have been created by an employee of the company with a single purpose account Bwithh 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam. Well spotted to explicitly link Alan O'Rourke. -- RHaworth 03:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom as spam. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time

Completing AfD started by anon, reason from change summary and my talk page: "This article can't possibly provide any useful information without either a) violating copyright or b) descending into non-NPOV fanboyism ("so-and-so is arguably deserving/not") All these Rolling Stone list pages have got to go. They're either stubs for ever or magnets for fanboy indignation. - Maggie --70.48.205.21" (I'm abstaining) Jamoche 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete either it violates WP:NPOV or WP:COPYVIO, take yer pick. Danny Lilithborne 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Danny Lilithborne. Magazine stories are relatively short; to include useful information on them, you have to either reproduce an unacceptable amount of information, or make stuff up. --Masamage 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hopelessly POV. Hopelessly.--aviper2k7(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Infrogtation tried to close this debate with a result of speedy keep, when there are four delete votes. Reverted and questioned. MER-C 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's been a pain in the arse. There was a period when it was a reasonable article. But then you get people putting the list back in, despite the hidden messages asking them not to. Also, then you get "blah blah should be on here" or "blah blah should be higher than blahder de blah" The JPStalk to me 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and due to lack of **insert guitarist here**. OBM | blah blah blah 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's impossible to conceive that an article of this name could be written in an an NPOV manner, and indeed it does seem to be pushing a fairly narrow agenda. Rather unhelpful, really. BTLizard 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Common article from a magazine without any real claim to significance or an unusual amount of attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete cuz it left out Slash! Wah!! (ahem) Actually, I was the anon who proposed we delete this, and I'm right. - Maggie --70.48.205.21 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, contentwise this is going to be a POV, Original research, & fanboy magnet unless the section "Notable guitarists not on the list commonly cited as deserving of inclusion include..." is agressively excised from this list... but that is a content issue. The real problem is that you take out all the OR & unverified speculation, all you have left is an article about a cover story from one issue of Rolling Stone, which was inexplicably moved to the current namespace, and doesn't really make a strong case for importance of this one RS article. Rolling Stone isn't the be all and end all of guitar playing critique and I would argue isn't even a reliable source on the topic; this isn't Guitarist Magazine...--Isotope23 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to future recreation. If we can have Historical rankings of United States Presidents, we could theoretically have an NPOV article about the greatest guitarists of all time - but an article about a single Rolling Stone article is not notable. There would need to be significantly more sources. --Hyperbole 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an encylopedia entry for an article in a magazine? Delete. QuiteUnusual 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently POV, that which is not a copyvio is original research. Guy 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BTLizard and nomination. Encyclopedias aren't about POV lists. —Keakealani 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles like this can never be NPOV. ObtuseAngle 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is done, SOME discussion of the all-time best guitarists is useful. Rolling Stone Magazine can be a source, without being the definitive list. But keep some listing of the greats. Tawn 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - We can't keep a listing of "great" guitarists because such a listing will inevitably be POV, whether it follows the essentially rockist agenda of the present article or some other range of criteria. BTLizard 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. The Rolling Stone list is biased from the ground up - I would suggest that the greatest guitarist of the 20th Century was probably Andres Segovia and any list of the supposed greatest guitarists which omits Segovia, Django Reinhardt, John Williams and Julian Bream is of decidedly questionable merit. One of my most vivid memories is hearing John Williams perform in St Albans Abbey - one man and an acoustic guitar in one of the largest cathedral naves in England, without any amplification. The audience was around a thousand people and you could have heard a pin drop, it felt as if there were just the two of us there. A truly breathtaking performance. Guy 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks for making me jealous Guy...--Isotope23 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, if there is more than one list of greatest guitarists, then a sourced List of guitarists labeled the greatest ever would be encyclopaedic if maintained (cf List of songs in English labeled the worst ever). Thryduulf 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Although that article is enormously enjoyable and has survived four nominations for deletion, it also has four problem-templates at the top. Surely not a good sign for future articles in the same vein. --Masamage 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, no, it would not. It would be a copyvio of intellectual property. As is this. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The point of articles like this is that the list is a handy way to cite acclaim for a guitarist without saying "regarded by many...", and linking to an article on the list rather than to the list itself allows for some contexualization--like pointing out that the list, being compiled by a rock music magazine, is inevitably a list of rock guitarists rather than all guitarists. It's clear that this article is headed for deletion, but perhaps it could be reborn as an article that brings together several similar lists from different sources for a broader approach. Nareek 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • We cannot keep this, it's a copyright violation. You could, instead of saying "regarded by many as ...", simply say "voted in the top 100 ..." and link to the offline page. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sponsors vs Freeloaders

This was nominated for deletion six months ago and kept with no consensus. However, there were some accusations of WP:POINT in that debate. I myself recommended a week keep then, but I've reconsidered since then. Google gives 46 unique hits, some of which still aren't reliable sources, and, aside from a couple of award nomination mentions (none actually won), there isn't much there. The award nomination mentions are well and good, but the problem is that they don't contribute too much to non-trivial third-party coverage (they're just lists). I do realize that CSD A7 has been recently expanded to include web content, and there is very little of notability claims in here as it stands (and any semblance of such is completely unsourced), but I guess that one could somewhat interpret the Red vs. Blue connection as a claim. So, given this and the past AfD and no consensus, I felt that it'd be better to send this to a debate first. — TKD::Talk 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how it's notable, and it appears to fail WP:WEB. TJ Spyke 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom.--Drat (Talk) 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no verification to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails numerous guidelines as above. Wickethewok 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, least notable thing ever. Recury 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the above comments. RFerreira 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per previous AFD - Hahnchen 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bass Pig

We have had vanity articles about people's pet animals. The title might suggest that this is one such but it is actually about the guy's sound system. Does not establish notability. -- RHaworth 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS. Crystallina 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the author tagged for speedy delete under CSD G7, but then contested his own deletion! By the way, delete per above. MER-C 06:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Awesome sound system, but doesn't fit into WP. Delete per nom. zephyr2k 23:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Esteban F. (contribs) 23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don’tDelete Please see the discussion page associated with the article. Markweiss
  • Keep Notable audio setup with 30 year history. SchmuckyTheCat 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article 1) provides an audio reproduction application example in a non-commercial setting and 2) is a informational springboard for interested persons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pat Cook (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete The speedy delete incident is explained by someone trolling the article's author at Talk:Bass Pig, but we can be pretty sure that the author didn't want to have the article speedily deleted. Anyway, I can't see any sign of third-party reporting on this. It is very hard to Wikipedia articles to be neutral (an absolute requirement) if they are written by people involved with the subject (this is why we have a guideline suggesting that it may be a problem if you write about yourself or your friends). For that reason we usually expect someone else, a reliable third-party source, to have written about things before Wikipedia has an article on them. Because that hasn't happened in this case I don't see how this article can be neutral as required. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources, etc. The usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Hemmingsen 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wherdsetgo

Fails WP:NFT; google has literally 0 hits Patstuart 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Spencer

I do not think that voicing a character in a computer game is enough for notability abakharev 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless he can be shown to have done a lot more than is currently mentioned in the article. BTLizard 09:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Shea

A borderline case, but I feel this individual does not meet the criteria in WP:BIO. Perhaps later, but not now. Crystallina 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Since when does contributing to a student journal made you notable? And as for the rest, there are millions of bloggers out there. Yandman 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the influence of the new media grows, so too does that of its stars. This young man seems to be among the more prominent/reputable bloggers, certainly writing for legitimate outlets, and he does seem to have a genuine following. I vote to keep it. ICW10003 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Users sole contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep. No need to delete this. The student is known in the blogsophere as an important contributor to an important website. I would say he is certainly notable on The Huffington Post - in August the site recorded 2.5 million unique visitors and 34 million page views. His writing has probably reached more readers than a large number of authors on Wikipedia.
    • Comment: IP 140.180.17.70, this is it's only contribution to Wikipedia
  • Delete. This isn't even borderline. The "sole contribution" posts above are sufficiently convincing. Michael Kinyon 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Writes for a blog. ergot 16:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and office decree on promotional articles. Teke (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Radio Racket

Warning to admins: This AfD is under attack, having been blanked by SPA 72.92.104.172 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) and replaced with the text "All guests are notable if you have even the tinest clue about the broadcasting industry, and there are no shameless plugs on this website. Everything here is accurate and truthful. Retards." --Aaron 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable web content. Not a speedy because of the guests section. Contested prod. MER-C 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete Shameless advertising. They've even put ads for their sponsors on! Yandman 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. I don't know why the guests section is an assertion of notability, since I don't think even one of the guests is themselves notable. -- Kicking222 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 per nom and Kicking222. --Aaron 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tagged for Speedy Delete A7 Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Works for me. I hope the admin salts it. --Aaron 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I do have a clue about the broadcasting industry, (couple well placed friends in the local Entercom-owned stations, plus a dabbling into Internet Radio,) and just because you scored interviews with a handful or two of local DJ's, does not establish notability. I will commend you for one thing, most local DJ's I talk to around here have noted that their managers are starting to consider Internet Radio as competition, and would never sign off on an interview. But I digress... --Roninbk t c e # 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Naconkantari under CSD G1. MER-C 06:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mittens the Untameable

Absolute stupidity, nuff said. Danny Lilithborne 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - actually, it is CSD G1 / CSD G7 - but since the article creator keeps removing the speedy tag, listing here is good too. - Trysha (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerealart

Delete: Self-promoting advert with no evidence of meeting WP:CORP.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  06:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: non-notable company advert. --Nehwyn 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZX2C4 Instant Messenger

It looks like 203.184.30.170 wanted this page deleted, but didn't tag it with {{subst:afd}}. Anyway, it's an article about software that fails to assert notability. Delete. MER-C 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a real product with heavy real world usage. For that reason, the notice will be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.41.117 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reverted the removal of the AfD notice from this page. Valrith 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)*
    • Addendum: the article is also a copyright violation from [7]. Valrith 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The author of that page releases the text of the front page as open text, as mentioned in the terms of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, that is untrue; as of 21:44Z 3-Oct the page shows a copyright notice at the bottom. Valrith 21:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • [8] See section 7, last sentence. It is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
            • So you've got two incompatible licenses listed for the text that is used in this article. I don't know what a court would do with that... Valrith 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
              • The considers it in this way: the site is governed by the copyright on the bottom, with the exception of any additional terms, as presented in terms.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zx2c4 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, very little web presence. Punkmorten 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this project has made large headway in the marketplace. It only recently has started to become prevalent as a public service on the internet, which is why there is little web presence. This is a highly legitimate product and should not be removed from Wikipedia. User:ZX2C4 21:41 2 October 2006 (UTC)*
  • Keep. Looks good to me. Although it saddens me that user 'ZX2C4' is voting to 'DO NOT DELETE', this does make it look fairly suspicious lol. THE KING 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. —Xezbeth 08:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep Naturally ZX2C4 wants to keep it up, so that is just to be expected. Let us look at the facts of the matter: ZIM is a real product with many, many users. User:THE KING is right.
  • Delete advertorial and lacking in reliable third-party reporting, or even much in the way of ghits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; crystalballism, WP:SOFT, WP:RS, etc. ergot 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Again, I assert that ZIM is a legitimate enterprise product. The company receives many calls and e-mails per day regarding licencing of the software to major firms. It does not have much Internet presence due to the nature of the product; it is designed for private use in companies, and the public server is only for demos and testing. The article is written as no such advertisement. If the language is written in a non-wiki way, then it needs to be flagged for cleanup, not for deletion. I assure you ZIM is legitimate. All above claims of illegitimacy are based in mere speculation and are completely unfounded.
No assuring us is not the way this works - you need non-notable sources to indicate this is worth an article. As for not reading like an advert - surely you jest? Looking past all of these features which eloquently enhance ease-of-use, the most remarkable feature of ZIM is it's advanced file transfer technology. Where other messengers fail to work with firewalls, are slow because of uncompressed data, or do not integrate with the users' computers well, ZIM excels. --Charlesknight 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It is irrevelant as to whether or not it is written like an advertisement. If it is in advert form, then the article must be cleaned up, not removed. As for credible sources: this project used to be a sourceforge featured project: [9]. Here are SF news archives: [10] and [11]. Here it is written about on a popular gaming forum: [12]. There is an article about it on zoominfo: [13]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's see 1 is a link to sourceforge - anyone can jump a few hoops and get on there - entirely non-notable. The second and third are just sourcefog logs - so what? The third is someone basically saying "hey dude - try this piece of software, me and two mates are trying it!" - big wow. The article listed in the 4th link says This summary was automatically generated using information found on the Internet. and is purely descriptive. --Charlesknight 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the 4th link: it shows that there is information on the internet about it if the bot was able to obtain it.
  • Keep ZIM is a real product that is vastly used in the business world. Its web presence is low and this is unfortuanate, but this does not change the fact that it is wide spread. As for sourceforge: look at how long this product has been on sourceforge. One cannot just jump a few hoops to get on sourceforge. One must undergo a large review process. Sorceforge logs are of news releases that sourceforge published. The third one, yes I'll agree, is just a couple of script kiddies using the software, but after all, the internet presense of ZIM is for script kiddies; the wide spread usage of this in the business world is done over the telephone and with real material. User:65.189.32.198 3 October 2006 4:39 PM (EST)
Great, you can list 3 or 4 of the coporations that are currently using this beta product. This is really really straightforward "I heard", "I think" and "I know" do NOT cut it on Wikipedia - Go read this and then you will be aware of what is required. --Charlesknight 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article passes the tests. Charlesknight -- let's keep ego out of this, please. 72.49.43.117 20:45, 2 October 2006
let me get this straight - this is an amazing in-use product "vastly used" in the business world but the designer is asking Do you think it is at all marketable? I'm interested in the opinion of the intelligent tech savy community, not just my mother who tells me it's great. I see.... --Charlesknight 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is A) not a reliable source, B) tells nothing about the actual usage, and C) may very well be an imposter. Please charlesknight, you said above that the forum wasn't reliable. Do not contradict yourself. Stop with your ego and illogical conclusions. 21:28, 2 October 2006 72.49.43.117
Where on the webpage does it say what you have quoted? It is not there.
Well that was not a very bright move - all you have done is indicate that you must be a sock of the user User:ZX2C4. Many thanks for outting yourself. --Charlesknight 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is there a correlation between the zx2c4 of wikipedia and of the fourms? What text was changed? Photoshopping is a popular device. Regardless of any correlation that could be met, a logical argument (as the KEEPs present) is logical regardless of bias.
  • Keep Zim is indeed a real product and has a number of users already. Zim was created in the most professional of ways to enhance the online expereince of business users in the midwest. It seems charlesknight is trolling out with logic. 24.29.21.137
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Reality

1) uncommon term in academic literature, 2) resembles existing article Objective reality, 3) from the talk page, it is clear that this article is not being taken seriously by anyone -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. DELETE. per nom -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete per nom. Not much to say on this one. Maybe some of the contents can be moved to the articles on altered states of consciousness, Timothy Leary or drug culture? --Francesco Franco 08:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete per nom. It seems an awkward attempt to define Objective reality through Indian mysticism; though apparently informed by drug experiences. No useful content can be appended to redeem it. Readers interested in the subject can read the articles suggested by Fransesco. Rintrah 10:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete a muddle of philosophical ideas with no real theme to tie them together into a coherent article. Nor is it possible that future edits could produce any coherence. An embarrassment. Banno 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete Article is disjointed; its descriptions are tepid and uniformative. I do not think there is anything this article can do for the wiki that others don't already do. - Sam 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Delete and redirect to Objective reality. Alba 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Comment. Anyone here actually know enough about Eastern philosophy to be sure that "ultimate reality" isn't an English phrase for some notable Eastern philosophical concept? There's the 25-year-old Ultimate Reality & Meaning journal, an Ultimate Reality bibliography... I'm not seeing any concise definitions, but that's hardly an uncommon issue in philosophy. (Concerned here that no distinction is being made between the quality of this article and the right of a better version of it to exist.) (late sign:) –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    1. I am not an expert, but I have studied enough Eastern philosophy and religion to know that when the phrase "ultimate reality" is used in these contexts, it can mean only one of a few things which are best covered in other articles on Wikipedia. 1) Ultimate reality can mean the real world which lies transcend and lies beyond the apparent world of the sense. This is covered in hundreds of different articles. 2) UR can be a shorthand for the "meaning of life", as in the first link which you cite. This should be covered in meaning of life. Ultimate reality often means some undisclosed higher plane of existence/heightened state of consciousness achieved through transcendental meditation, the use of drugs. This should obviously be covered in things like satori, enlightenment, consciousness, spirituality, transcendental meditation, etc.. etc. Somehow I do NOT think that Wikipedia is LACKING in such material. Au contraire. --Francesco Franco 08:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. (Ideally, of course, these would all be merged into Transcendental Unmitigated Ultimate Reality III: The Wrath of Khansciousness.) Thanks for responding FF. –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Delete -- I'm usually a tie-dyed inclusionist, but this is utterly pointless. I have nothing new to add on the reasons, but add my vote. --Christofurio 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (web). NawlinWiki 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Mohawk Comics

Page previously deleted (presumably via Prod) with title Mr. Mohawk. Now recreated with this title, so considered a contested prod. Title of comic plus Morelli (i.e. the author) gives 5 distinct Google hits, which is extremely low for a webcomic Fram 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Launched three weeks ago, too. Also fails to assert notability. Speedy delete - tagged as such. MER-C 09:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Born Lords of the English Realm

I am not sure whether this is a simple hoax, or what. Certainly Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland wasn't in any position to be killed in a duel with "Lord Richard Brown" in 1793 as he had died in 1765. William IV wasn't king in 1793, George III was. I'm not sure whether WP:NFT or WP:NOR applies here, but the article is not verifiable. I presume that the last sentence, about the long-lost Australian heirs, explains why this was written. Anyway, delete seems to be the answer to the problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No references; more importantly, none turned up on searches for several of the people mentioned. Definitely a hoax. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pure nonsense. Completely barmy. I'm not even sure that "Lords of the English Realm" is a valid or recognised term anyway. "Peers of the realm", yes, but not this I don't think. BTLizard 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - total guff. QuiteUnusual 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - complete nonsense. john k 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreferenced and possibly no basis in reality. --Roisterer 09:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Steel 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tickle The Tanuki/Insanity 24/7

Contested WP:PROD for webcomic with no signs of notability per WP:WEB (no reliable independent sources given). Delete. Kusma (討論) 08:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki Naconkantari 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life series storyline

A textbook case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7. This is a novelization of the various Half-Life games. It has no hope of being sourced to anything but observation of the games themselves (the linked refs are to a HL2 fansite), and the entire article is redundant to the plot summaries in the articles themselves.

We're not here to retell stories in less-compelling form; Valve has some games they'd like to sell you if you want to know what happens in the Half-Life series. Instead, Wikipedia has plot summaries to support encyclopedic overview of the fictional works as artefacts in the real world, and this article makes no effort whatsoever to do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not a game guide. MER-C 09:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    There aren't any game guide elements of this article. It's pure plot...well, it's a long way from a summary or synopsis. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Changed to: Keep, or Copy to WikiBooks ("Half-Life Fact File" entry) if the consensus to merge, redirect or delete the article is met. While #7 of the section asserts that plots summaries are not welcomed as sole contents of an article, it adds that it "may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." Given that this article was created as a result of a split from the Half-Life 2 article (as a result of comments in the article's featured article nomination) (along with other related topics), the storyline article is at least part of Half-Life 2's article series, and should be exempted from WP:NOT.

    Summary of events:

  • Delete, there comes a point when you have to say, "OK, we don't need to have this much information on a subject." Just summarize the plot in the main article/s and accept that Wikipedia is not the place to go into this much detail. Recury 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As the Half-Life series has a unified Storyline, having a single article collecting that information is very useful, as it means somebody won't have to scan several pages at once to get the same info. I don't see the point in asking for sources when anybody can just play the game if they want to do so, but I'm sure there are FAQs and Game Guides that include most of the information. Anything else can(amount of detail, connections to the real world), and should be, dealt with in cleanup, not calls for deleting. Mister.Manticore 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment every article needs to be WP:V sourced; that is non-negotible.--Isotope23 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Does every fact in every article need to be sourced? No, of course not. The rigidity implied by your statement of non-negotiability is troubling, because it seems to imply that everything needs complete sources, which is rather silly. The rule of common sense applies. For example, you don't need to find a source to say that the White House is well, White. In this case, you can verify any of the content directly by playing the game. If you don't like that, for whatever reason, though it sounds silly to me, you can easily go over to Gamefaqs and read any number of the Half-life FAQs there. Many of them are quite descriptive as to the Story line. If that's not enough for you, then why don't you identify some of the sections which you find troubling on the article's talk page, we'll see if some sources can be found to establish them. Mister.Manticore 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article combines of several Half-Life stories. The majority of the article is encyclopedic, except for some parts. Instead, a cleanup tag should be put, and not deletion. This article definitely does not meet Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It was split as it will take too much space in the main article. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it is not properly sourced, source it! If it needs cleaning up, clean it up! None of these are grounds for deletion. With regard to the ever-ambiguous call to not an indiscriminate collection of information, I would like to remind everyone that we are dealing here with one of the most ground-breaking games ever, which certainly means it deserves more than one single article to deal with everything. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Groundbreaking or not (and I happen to love the game), storylines for games are not suitable article material. No strong opposition to a transwiki, but Wikipedia is not the place for this article.--Isotope23 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So, are you proposing deleting the story-line content from the individual Half-life games articles? That seems to follow from your comment. Mister.Manticore 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing any changes to the exising game articles. My personal opinion is that the level of detail in the storylines in many of those articles is excessive... but that is just my opinion. Trust me, I have no interest in going to each of these individual articles and fighting to edit those sections down. I don't agree however with having a separate storyline article just to have redundant information all in one place. I think Alba's suggestion below is a rather good idea if Wikibooks will have this.--Isotope23 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would agree with you, except for one very big thing. The Half-life series has a unified, on-going storyline, as such, it is important to cover that issue. At the least, the information in this article should be merged, however pruned it may need to be to Half-life series. Since you agree that the information itself belongs in the individual articles, I don't see how you can argue that having it in one single place is a bad idea. Sure, it's redudant, but redundancy is often a good thing. How else would you do it? Mister.Manticore 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I already explained how I would do it above... I just simply disagree with a series storyline article. Wikipedia is not the place to cover this.--Isotope23 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a good compromise that can be made here. The article as is should first be copied to Wikibooks as it is worthwhile but not encyclopedic. A massively summarized version can be merged to Half-Life series, to augment the rather sparse material already on that page. Alba 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As excessively detailed plot summary that is not encyclopedic, which is grounds for deletion. I'm not sure, but I don't think WikiBooks would want this. Wickethewok 17:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree. WP:FICT also cites the Final Fantasy X article series, which uses Wikibooks to host information that would less likely merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The contents in Half-Life series storyline are simply plotlines and not game guides or walkthroughs, which I would otherwise suggest deleting or moving to StrategyWiki. The existing but incomplete Wikibooks entry on the Half-Life series would also benefit from a transwiki, and is perhaps the best way to resolve this issue. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 11:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • Delete unencyclpedic gibberish. ShadowKinght (Talk)!?!
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Look at number 7 under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Whispering(talk/c) 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Is useful in keeping the storyline in one article. If it is deleted, then at least make a copy in WikiBooks. JONJONAUG 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki to wikibooks. It is good content, but far too detailed for an encyclopedia. (I mean, compare the plot summary in The Odyssey!) However, I strongly disagree that this is a game guide; not every article about a game is a guide and this one tells you nothing about how to play the game. And again, when writing about an artifact like a game or book, the artifact itself makes a perfectly acceptable source. — brighterorange (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as per above. Ixistant 22:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above.--Planetary 01:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. Hbdragon88 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. Tryggvia 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. WP:NOT material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a guide. -- Psi edit 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's not a llama, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki since this is a fine llama. MarphyBlack 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom
  • Keep Its good to have a page which connects all the stories together. It just needs a little editing to look more professional.
  • Comment Not to be pushy or anything, but shouldn't this debate be closed by now? It's been longer than 5 days. The Kinslayer 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SharpInstall

Non notable software. Sharpinstall gets 31 distinct Google hits. Claims to fame are unverified (sharpinstall + wix gives three pages, including WIkipedia and a letter by the creator of sharpinstall). Fails WP:V for the claims, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP for the product. Fram 08:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Want a reason for speedy deletion. MER-C 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Company's website has not been maintained since 2004, many broken links = not actively trading. Support forum for product has virtually no posts (41, most by the product owner) QuiteUnusual 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The three boys (opera)

No merit. When this article is deleted, this one needs to be deleted as well: THE THREE BOYS (noredirect). Michael Bednarek 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is interesting and a Mozart opera is clearly a highly notable and verifiable subject; I'd rather see an article about every Mozart character than about every Pokemon character (which, sadly, we have). Normally, I'd suggest a merge into The Magic Flute, but that would create an article that had a perplexing amount of information on the three boys and almost none on any of the principals. --Hyperbole 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep IF the article/claims can be sourced before the AfD period ends. Otherwise, delete. Valrith 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mozart work, clearly notable. This is not a place for clean-up of articles. AmitDeshwar 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not describe a work by Mozart; it's a muddled description of a certain theatrical device, which might well deserve an article in its own right (three witches, three ladies, greek chorus), but this isn't it. Adding the relevant facts to the article The Magic Flute wouldn't add much of value to that article.Michael Bednarek 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Hyperbole Curiousbadger 14:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So the level of articles on Pokemon characters is now the yardstick for Wikipedia? Michael Bednarek 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Robdurbar 10:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Business and International Studies

This is little more than an advertisement for a self-styled "University". Final paragraph reads as if it comes from a brochure and is a good description of the business community in Geneva, but non-enlightening for a university. The official web site includes statements from former students, of a university that opened this year! Emeraude 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam. User's only contributions make it more suspicious. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SOMEWHAT SPEEDY KEEP (without prejudice against merging). We may not need a half-dozen lists, but it seems the best plan may be to merge or to resubmit a single problematic list for individual review. Nothing's getting deleted here, that much is obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon by stage

Very crufty. I'm fine with having one list of Pokemon, but do we really need six? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also nominating:

In fact, the only major difference between most of these lists is that the pokemon are organized differently. --TBCTaLk?!? 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep some or reorganize, the articles themselves are worthwhile, I think we should merge all of them Pokédex ones, to list each Pokémon and all their dex numbers into one, while List of Pokémon by stage to kept as it is, since it's the only thing that shows all the evolutionary lines of the Pokémon, something none of the other articles do. Highway Daytrippers 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all - lots of redundant information here. MER-C 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    That's going to be the table from hell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with AMIB, merging sounds unreasonable as it would make the merged list really, really large. Deletion seems to be a better option.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Mu. These are terrible "articles," but I don't know what, if anything, to do with them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Mu? Please clarify.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    It means...mu. I don't know what, if anything to do to clean up this mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP ALL - Plau 10:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Pokemon by stage, each one is a list that shows the pokemon in each pokedex. Some aren't on certain lists. At least, Definitly keep National pokedex number, it's a flagship list for sure. Merge Pokedex numbers together as suggested.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Partly) - The National Dex one has to stay, even if its the only one that does. But personally I feel List of Pokemon by stage should stay, it is different enough. As it clearly shows pokemon evolutions all on the same page. National dex order, with the new evolutions of old pokemon, wouldn't do this. But the other three could probably go. They are just technically repeating, even though they have different pokemon/numbers. Gran2 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the articles exist, I see nothing wrong with having multiple lists to organise them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    But six lists?--TBCΦtalk? 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's a good idea to cover the several Pokedexes, as it's perfectly reasonable to assume that users could look articles up using any of them. I can't see a convenient way to merge them into one big list, either. As long as it's reasonable that people are using these to find the information they're looking for, I see no reason not to keep them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    But why do we have to organize the pokemon in so many different ways? Why can't we just have one list and one method of organization, instead of six different articles that deal with basically the same content?--TBCΦtalk? 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    It isn't Wikipedia's fault there are several Pokedexes. The reason the "regional" Poxedexes exist is since the collection mechanic is integral to the games, but not every Pokemon will fit in every game (especially the original Game Boy ones). By having regional Pokedexes, gamers can feel like they "caught them all" even though they only collected the ones in their particular game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. Also, I count 4 lists there, not 6. JQF 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    There are five nominated, but I decided to exclude List of Pokémon by name, since at least one list should be kept.--TBCΦtalk? 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. As noted on its talk page, I'm against the idea of using the card game's terminology on the page. The page itself I'm fine with. --HeroicJay 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aly333 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge The different classifications are useful. For example, if someone is only interested in the first generation, there will be no mention of Munchlax or Smoochum and so on. The one by stage is useful too. And by name is quite useful as well, because people are more likely to know the names rather than the numbers. The ones by individual pokedex could be put on the same page. Michaelritchie200 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all: I think something some people don't realize is that these aren't just the same lists with all the Pokémon rearranged. The lists contain different sets of Pokémon that can only reasonably be sorted into separate lists. Also, we wouldn't want to merge these lists because then somebody would come along saying that the page is too big and full of unattractive lists. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    They regional number lists do have the same content. The only difference is that each have different ways of numbering the pokemon.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    No no, some of the lists have species of Pokémon that others don't. The issue with merging them all into one list is that you can't choose to view Pokémon from only one set. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (partly): I suggest we should keep the Names and National list, and then simply include columns for the regional numbers. For example, Zubat's would look like this:
№ EN Name JP Name Romanization Trademarked Rōmaji Johto № Hoenn № Shinou №
041 Zubat ズバット Zubatto Zubat 37 63 28
The by Stage list is being discussed on its talk page as not making a whole lot of sense due to lack of sources. DanPMK 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with your proposal on merging the lists, though perhaps the Names and National lists could be merged into the table as well.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the numerical lists along the lines proposed by DanPMK above. The numerous lists are cumbersome, and, since not all pokemon appear on all lists, having multiple lists actually makes things harder to use: those unfamiliar with the series will assume that each list contains all pokemon, and will consequently be confused when they find a given species missing from a list.
    Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia aimed at non-specialists, not a specialist reference work aimed at pokemon experts! We should present things in the format that is most generally useful, and in this case I believe that will involve consolidating the information so that people need only look in one place to get all the details. — Haeleth Talk 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. The Hybrid 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haeleth. -Jeske (SHOUT!) 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems sort of pointless to merge them like DanPMK proposed. The number of N/As or blank spaces would look pretty messy. I would say to delete all of them except for national because people can just look at the sigle pages or just keep all of them. Nemu 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Wikipedian06 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all.
  • The first one is the very basis of the entire numbering system.
  • The second through fourth are regional Pokedexes.
  • The name list needs to be kept, as if that goes, then PCP falls apart.
  • The stage one is related to evolutions.
  • Half of them relate to a PKMN game that has just been released, Diamond and Pearl.
  • Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all - The previous comment is exactly what I was going to say. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - per everyone else.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pokedex articles (national/johto/hoenn, shinou), delete the others. --Philo 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • They are all needed. They can't be merged as they are too long. Aslo they are not the same list they are the lists based on each generation. National is the only one that is compleate becuse it is the only one that has them all. NOTHING SHOULD CHANGE!!! (Translation KEEP!) Also, unless you are very versed on pokemon (AKA played more than one game) You should not be voteing as you don't know what you are talking about Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Stage article, Merge Number and Name articles per DanPMK; I would suggest merging them into an article with a title like "List of Pokémon by number" or into the National article. Also, I would like to comment that I was the one who separated these lists in the first place. The reason was that with all these lists - listed seperately, mind you, with a section for National and a section for Jhoto and so forth - made a gigantic and rather cumbersome article. Putting everything on a table and arranging them by either National number or alphabetically would solve that problem rather nicely. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Addemendum: In my haste to explain myself, I forgot my rationale for keeping the Stage list. Well, while the various number lists just present the Pokemon reordered by whatever strange whims the designers had in the different generations (and Jhoto doesn't even have numbers, per se), Stage presents an entirely different set of information, and personally I like seeing the different evolutionary families arranged in an easy-to-see manner. I wouldn't be crushed if the final decision was to add a 'Stage' column to DanPMK's table, but I'd prefer the Stage list to stand on its own. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible merge, if not completely Delete I urge the closing administrator to seriously take into account WP:NOT and enact measures to merge of this stuff into one, or at most, two lists hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are six different ways to organise Pokémon into a list; six different lists is precisely the right way to do that until such time when technical measures make it possible to dynamically generate lists of this nature by way of metadata. I too strongly encourage the closing adminstrator to take into account WP:NOT, specifically noting how not one person has demonstrated in any reasonable way how these lists are anything but beneficial.--SB | T 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    Lists on any subject can be organized in hundreds of different ways, but that doesn't mean we should have hundreds of seperate lists because of it. After all, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per DanPMK. This person's got the right idea. The pokemon would come, most importantly, in National Dex number, while still keeping their other dex numbers. Alphabetical order is completely useless; that was the one that should have been nominated, not National Dex order. The only list left is the by stage. That can be merged onto the Pokémon evolution page, possibly. It can replace the external links on that page (both of which are already obsolete). It is, after all, a chart relating directly to Pokémon evolution. You Can't See Me! 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking back on what I wrote, it doesn't seem very clear. What I mean is to merge the Dex-ordered articles together in DanPMK's neat little table, merge the Stage list with Pokémon evolution, and delete the Names list altogether, even though List of Pokémon by name was not nominated for deletion (I still don't see why National Dex, the most commonly used pokemon order, was nominated, but not alphabetical order, which is rarely used with pokemon). Hopefully that was less vague. You Can't See Me! 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit 2: I didn't mean to strikethrough that... You Can't See Me! 05:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Progress on the table: Johto and Hoenn numbers done: User:DanPMK/dex DanPMK 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That really doesn't seem that useful. It seems much too jumbled and the numbers by themselves are pretty pointless. I think it would just be better to leave the other numbers out of the National Dex, and just delete the other Dex pages. If someone wants a number, they can just look at the single Pokémon articles.Nemu 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It can still be useful. Just because it will end up ordered only one way doesn't mean that one should ignore the other ways it can be ordered. You Can't See Me! 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like it'll just cause clutter to me. Take a look at DanPMK's test page. It looks really squished and untidy. If the other pages are deleted, the information just ends up being pointless. If we're going to keep the numbers, we might as well add the types or something.
Indeed, it looks rather clumsy and confusing. The internal Hoenn numbers are there so there won't be blank spaces, but if we add Shinou numbers, there WILL be blanks, since it doesn't have internal Shinou numbers past 151. Adding the types would mean we would have to keep the page one vertical column, or else it would be too wide. This would make it far too long. As of now, the page is very large. DanPMK 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The adding the types comment was to show how pointless the numbers are. Alone, they really aren't that important, so if we're going to remove those lists, I think the numbers should just be on the single pages. And just think how ugly it'll look with all of the blank spaces. Nemu 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge, failing that, Keep. Listing Pokémon in order they're listed in various games is a reasonable excuse to set up a list in my opinion. Not sure if they warrant their own articles even if it means there'll be a huge article. But I prefer the huge article, or even keeping them as separate articles, to no article at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo Fonseca

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. 743 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NMG, based on what I find, as well. PJM 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Eusebeus 13:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, and I see I have some work cut out for me. --- Deville (Talk) 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complexxon

Incomprehensible, cross-linked spamming related to anti-oil corporation agenda. Looks like it fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VANITY and WP:OR.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just cross-links with the same basic content:

  • Incorporated governance
  • Gasgate 1963
  • Pipeline lock-in
  • 'Contract with Europe' (redirect)

All articles created by User:S.Tychon, or one of five anonymous IPs: User:85.146.184.157, User:62.58.132.178, User:195.169.78.207, User:195.169.78.205 and User:137.120.3.224, who seem to be the same user. --DeLarge 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

yes it is! (Stephan Tychon@dr.com ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) 16:25, October 2, 2006.
— 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agreed on all counts and would add WP:BALLS, WP:NONSENSE, WP:ATK, WP:ADVERT (although I accept that they are not all accepted grounds for deletion!)
If I were being generous, I might suggest that the author is a non-English speaker and the article may have important points hidden in there somewhere if they can only be deciphered. These points could find a potential home on the Exxon page. However, given the author's vandalism in spreading gibberish throughout numerous articles to promote his POV, I'm not inclined to be generous. GDallimore 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • -------------------------------------------------
  • Incomprehensible vandalism?
  • Complete bollocks?
  • Patent nonsense?
  • Tenuous connection to reality?
  • Spurious claims?
  • Widely disputed?
  • A walled garden?
  • isparaging a subject?
  • Self-contained nest of bullshit?
  • Emerging theory?
  • Spreading gibberish?
  • POV?
Who are you to judge without explaining and what you know that gives you the privilege to insult people?
Yes I am a Dutch, non-English speaker. What is your problem here?
Decision of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market not a source of legitimate and reputable authority? See Tychon v. Dell on [14]
Same for the key-document "La transformation de L'industrie du Gaz aux Pays-Bas" of 1964 under Gasgate 1963: "La Condition Americaine"?. Do you speak your languages at all? You think american 'civilization' is no economic fundamentalism? Dream on!
WHAT YOU KNOW?
Shouldn't you rather have respect for a single individual disclosing classified information based on material previously published by a ::reliable source demonstrating this is not mere original sourcing research/
Wouldn't you rather be helpful and ask good questions for Christ sake?
Delarge, shouldn't you stay with cars?
  • Yours, Stephan Tychon, Bugattist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) 16:35, October 2, 2006.
— 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Re-action: The signing-procedure seems to be to complexx too for me where I considered 'signing' with my full name would do the job: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Tychon@dr.com Please let me know if you need more information or go to www.xxell.com [15]
The spreading gibberish comment was as a consequence of your vandalism to the Software patent debate article (which is fragile and messy enough as it is) and the Software patents under United Kingdom patent law article (which I have personally spent a lot of time working on). You added to those articles, which have no clear connection with your cause, prominent discussions of "implicit patents", which is a completely meaningless phrase, and links to your website.
Your trademark case with OHIM against Exxon may well be valid, but does not give you the right to vandalise other pages (particularly patent pages - patents and trademarks are separate and distinct forms of Intellectual property). Also, the fact that you have a trademark victory aganist Exxon does not in any way validate your cause.
I'm still not inclined to be generous and, since I didn't officially vote before:
  • Delete all per nom GDallimore 09:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and GDallimore. --Aaron 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all What you know?! That's killing me... Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to invite you to better study content of 'Casus Europae' (Tychon v. Dell) and state proper citations:
  • I do not claim nor enjoy a trademark victory against Exxon.
  • My European Opposition against registration of Dell's Community Trade Mark (CTM)was succesful and is fully documented on xxell.com [16], notwithstanding Dell's appeal and strategic countering before Dutch courts.
  • Casus Europa clearly defines implementing of TM-supported firmware computer programs as they link mental processes (like instant 'branding' of this new method of 'implicit patenting') to software programs. Compare the Macrossan Patent-case where the assembly-function of computer programs is discussed.
  • The .E trademark is uniquely self-patenting because there is no way around this business-method other than copying it with less distinctive internet icons.
  • I persist in my oppinion that Dell and Exxon are imposing gibberish and a global threat to fair and independent research, innovation, progress, real change and development and thus being the global cause and main force behind the structural and startegic complexxon of enduring error sustained by information-terror where energy-fundamentals determine foreign affairs and international diplomacy endangering state-sovereignty usually misperceived and dubbed as state-failures: the global P3-tangle of incorporated governance guided by the primacy of economic fundamentalism.
  • The root cause of the information war (Silent War) cannot even be silenced by Wikipedians, but you are all free to try.
  • I wish you good luck in persuing to unveil the truth and sustain the global battle against mingled corporate arrogance and public ignorance.

Signed: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Gloabl energy dissident. (Tychon@dr.com)

Mr Tychon
I am very sorry that you feel so put upon, and I wanted to write this final comment to try to explain to you why I have been giving such negative feedback. I would reassure you that I carefully read all of your articles and your website before putting forward my vote for deletion. The reason for my voting to delete your articles is not because I do not agree with your point of view, or because I do not think you are correct in your point of view, but because it simply is not possible to understand what you are trying to say. I am afraid that your command of the English language does not appear to be good enough to get your points across and I can see no possibilty of improving the situation.
My first comment, noting that you may not be an English speaker, was intended to be supportive. The fact that English is not your first language should be taken into account and extra effort put into trying to understand what you want to say. I have made that extra effort and still do not understand you. If I may make a friendly suggestion, why not create articles on the Dutch Wiki (I've run a seach under Complexxon, Tychon and xxell and can find nothing), so that you are writing in your own language. When you have a stable and accepted article, I'm sure there would be an opportunity to have it translated into English by someone with a better command of the language.
I am sorry for my error in saying that you had a victory over Exxon, rather than saying that it was a victory over Dell. This was an honest mistake. I have now reviewed the complete decisions in the Tychon V Dell case and the subsequent appeal. As a registered (but non-practicing) European Trade Mark Attorney I am sorry to have to tell you that you clearly do not have a full grasp of intellectual property law and are not qualified to comment on it. For example, I note that OHIM's decision was based entirely on their own reasoning and that very little you had to say was taken into account. Your submissions that Dell had stolen your trademark and had bad advertising practices were completely ignored. Your submissions that your own trademark had achieved recognition were rejected. OHIM rejected Dell's trademark for some of the goods and services under which they had requested it to be registered, giving you only a partial victory. The subsequent appeal (filed by you) was found to be inadmissible because you failed to pay an appeal fee. Apparently, you said that you should not be required to pay an appeal fee. I am afraid that that strikes me as a very arrogant submission to make and I am not surprised that your appeal was thrown out.
In any event, as I mentioned before, your partial victory over Dell only shows that you have previously registered a trade mark that was similar to the trade mark that Dell wished to register. It does not support your point of view expressed in any of the articles that are proposed for deletion.
Finally, as a registered (and practicing) European Patent Attorney from the UK, I can say with utter certainty that there is no such thing as an "implicit patent". [17] There is also no such thing as a global patent. The Macrossan decision in the UK does not support the patenting of computer-implemented mental processes, does not have global importance and the appeal filed by Mr Macrossan has not yet been judged on. A trademark does not give you patent rights and is not a "business method". Having run a search on [ep.espacenet.org], I find that you do not appear to have any granted or pending patents. Therefore, someone can provide exactly the same services as you so long as they use a different trade mark. Your comments on software patents are therefore completely misguided. They also do not appear to have any relevance to the articles that have been proposed for deletion.
In summary, having carefully reviewed all of the materials made available to me, I can make no sense and can see no merit in any of your articles and maintain my vote to have them deleted.
Mr G Dallimore MPhys (Oxon) EPA ETMA RPA CPA, Reading, UK GDallimore 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mr. G. Dallimore, incredible researching and explanation. --PresN 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Somebody please WP:BJAODN this entire AfD when it's over with, if I don't remember to. --Aaron 20:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)BJAO

<snip>Comments moved to talk page</snip>. Further conversations should be addressed there. That may halt the edit count on this page (38 from one named account and two related anonymous IP blocks in the last 48 hours). --DeLarge 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted by NawlinWiki (a7) - Yomanganitalk 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hookers on stilts

Non-notable blog. Nehwyn 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 14:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John fox mp

A blatant hoax article. No such MP, nor such a constituency. Really should be a speedy candidate but there are no criteria that fit. David | Talk 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity too. MER-C 10:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment see also Minister for Make Poverty History and Fair Trade created by the same author. Mr Stephen 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Catchpole 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7 vanity; no notability shown in article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICEshop

Non-notable commercial website. Nehwyn 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No significance claimed or made in the article. Borders on advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per below. PJM 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minister for Make Poverty History and Fair Trade

Part of a sequence of hoax articles and additions by User:Johnfox2007. There is no such cabinet post, see PM's list, and there is no such MP as John Fox, see the list accessible from here. No google hits for "Minister for Make Poverty History and Fair Trade" Mr Stephen 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete blatant hoax. David | Talk 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment see also John fox mp by the same author. Mr Stephen 10:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Catchpole 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinky Lee (porn star)

Delete. I think this fails WP:BIO. Please note; I am not the author, though it appears this way. I split thsi article off Pinky Lee (same name different act!) after the originator had placed it there as well as the orginal guy. I will be notifing the original author of this AfD Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable at all, and certainly not hot either. I would most definitely not hit it.UberCryxic 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets critera at WP:BIO, though WP needs another pornstar article like it needs....and whether or not you would hit it is not a critera for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm all for notable pornstart articles, but can't see where this meets WP:BIO actually. Show me where, and I'll change my opinion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AnonEMouse. Hemmingsen 17:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. feydey 10:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avesthagen

Not notable, per WP:CORP. Prodded once and tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 11:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a bio-tech outfit in India with non-trivial media coverage over several years. That includes an international award by a business magazine as a top "Asia 100" start up. The company's patents and GMO-testing might be enough to secure notability (?), and the quality list of international partner companies looks impressive to me. Admittedly it's not in the same league as BioMérieux but I don't see the sense in deleting it. --Mereda 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Six results in Google News [18] and 88 Google News Archive results [19] shows that this company meets WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Mereda. AmitDeshwar 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 systematic hoax vandalism incited by Colbert that we have already deleted several times before. See also Briefsism (AfD discussion) (and again). Uncle G 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cult of Briefsism

This is possibly a non-notable group that assertability isn't noted, I'm not sure if this is even encyclopedic despite the Stephen Colbert reference. This is submitted for AFD anyway due to notability concerns. Vel ZAMAN 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - never mind non-notable, it's just a hoax article. --DeLarge 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This group is real, and it's a proper religion. In Brooklyn, New York it's an accepted religion. EddieSegoura 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Contribution of self-styled sockpuppet of a blocked vandal discounted. Uncle G 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:HOAX -- Whpq 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to mistress (lover).--SB | T 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kept woman

Previous speedy nomination as "empty" and "dicdef". Doesn't quite meet speedy criteria (see talk page). Converting to AFD for community consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) would seem to make more sense. -- Whpq 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef which could never be expanded. I disagree with the redirect idea, as a "kept woman" is not necessarily a "mistress". It would make just as much sense to redirect it to wife, which I also think is a bad idea. -- Kicking222 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Already at wiktionary. Yomanganitalk 12:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, dicdef. PJM 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely a dicdef and nothing more. Emeraude 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whpq is right. According to Martin Montgomery (1995-12-01). An Introduction to Language and Society. United Kingdom: Routledge, 230. ISBN 0415072387. , "mistress" and "kept woman" are now largely synonymous. There's plenty to say on the subject, too. According to Philippa Levine (2003-07-04). Prostitution, Race and Politics. United Kingdom: Routledge, 301. ISBN 0415944465. , for example, the Commissioner of Police in Bombay was once instructed not to register kept women as prostitutes.

    Since the further reading is useful, merge these duplicate articles. Uncle G 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge as per Uncle G Bwithh 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) and delete per Uncle G. In my experience, "merge" closings end up never been acted upon, and thus are no different than "keep"s. --Aaron 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As the dicdef already exists at Wiktionary, merge per Uncle G and redirect and delete per Aaron. Alba 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G --dannycas 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article as-is is POV inherently, in that it assumes this is an appropriate title for this phenomenon/category of person. To make it NPOV would be to rewrite it about the term "kept woman", but then this would be a dicdef and would also be inappropriate. Retitling it to a neutral title would require moving it to "Mistress". Thus, delete and redirect to Mistress (lover) is the best course. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Delete and create redirect to Mistress (lover). Nothing to merge. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article and redirect "Kept woman" to Mistress (lover), as above. Mistress (lover) seems to be a good article and I don't see anything in "Kept woman" that is worth merging. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mistress (lover) although there are "kept" people (i.e. voluntarily taken care of by others) who are not lovers. That concept needs to be documented, but not necessarily via such a loaded term. Samatva 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, a3, no content. NawlinWiki 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hollyoaks: Let loose episodes

Incomplete and hasn't been touched for two months Quentin X 11:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - wikipedia is not a directory of teen soap-opera spin-off episodes. Catchpole 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - almost no content whatsoever. If anyone's rouge enough to speedy it, go ahead. MER-C 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, A3 (no content). --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So tagged. MER-C 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like someone started it and then forgot about it before adding any real content. that said, I think this could be made into a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information (Half-Life 2 mod)

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, I see no case for deletion here: WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline, the article is sourced (and even it weren't, then it would only require sourcing, not deletion) and the links provided certainly do not fail WP:RS, since they include respectable gamesites like Gamespot. Please stick to Wikipedia:deletion policy for reasons that are ground for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is not sourced according to the reliable sources criteria (and before you say that's just a guideline, WP:V, which is policy, uses the text); to be truly sourced, the sources have to be inline, but even so, there are only primary sources, which do not match WP:RS or WP:V. Gamespot only offers a download and is therefore not a source (it would count as a web directory in this circumstance. If it actually wrote an article on this mod, that would be different). An article can fail WP:V and be deleted that way if there's no indication that it can meet WP:V. Too many articles on this site already lack sourcing, let's not create more. ColourBurst 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, mods are generally not-notable and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. If there is a lack of third-party reliable sources available on the subject that is grounds for deletion, and I'm looking at the article and I'm not seeing them. Recury 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly does fail WP:RS/WP:V. The Gamespot listing is quite trivial at best. Also, its quite clearly vanity if you look at the very bottom of the article. Wickethewok 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Recury. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I essentially agree with Recury on this one. I see no information that demonstrates that this is an important, popular, or notable mod.--Isotope23 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Few mods are notable, and this doesn't appear to be one of them... hmmm, this makes me feel like playing some Thievery UT... GarrettTalk 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 08:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm on the mod team, and all this information is correct. I'm the source, there just isn't a link I can post to that effect. This mod is going places, already popular on certain boards, give it a month or two and I expect it to become very popular indeed with the next release. Please save the article until that time.LaCabra 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that Wikipedia tends to believe more in "first be famous, then have you get an article" kind of thing. For example, I opposed inclusion of Black Mesa, because the thing isn't even out yet, but they have game mag mentions, ModDB awards, alleged commendations from Valve etcetera; who am I to argue against that? People will probably remember them even if it turns out to be vapourware. If Missing Information can't provide such mentions, then I'm afraid we can't really establish the notability. "Certain boards" probably won't help. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The mod only has "public test" version out. Every mod that hits 1.0 release probably deserves an article, but beta-stage stuff is extremely debatable, especially if it has not gotten media attention. Until then, time for a blurb in "List of unreleased HL2 mods" or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - A mod of this magnitude that even has been in a magazine and has had a release deserves an article.Gurluas 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Gurluas
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Arda

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, I see no case for deletion here: WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline, the article is sourced (and even it weren't, then it would only require sourcing, not deletion) and the links provided certainly do not fail WP:RS, since they include respectable gamesites. Please stick to Wikipedia:deletion policy for reasons that are ground for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Well, it only requires sourcing" ignores the fact that oftentimes sourcing is asked for and people never give them until the article is in danger of deletion (and sometimes never give them at all, because there aren't any). But in any case, unless Planet Annihilation wrote an review of this mod, it hasn't said anything about the mod, it just gave a link for download. That's not sourcing - all of the information from the article still came from the author's own keyboard. ColourBurst 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Although still do not think that lack of sourcing is a reason for deletion (if no sources exist at all, that can be reason for deletion of course). I had a closer look and admit that I was not able to find any information in secondary sources for this game. That means indeed that sourcing will be very difficult, therefore I striked my vote for this AfD. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement, nn game mod. Recury 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No reliable sources. No idea what "respectable gamesites" Reinoutr is referring to - he just seems to be copying/pasting all his AFD responses... Wickethewok 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh please, of course it is partly copy/pasted, like are all these nominations. The nominations don't even try to give reasoning for specific articles, just a few calls to a couple of wiki-talk abbreviations. If you would have looked more careful, you would have noticed I actually adjusted my votes for each AfD I voted on (which certainly is not every game-related AfD, just the ones I happened to stumble upon and that have my interest), to fit that particular AfD. And to answer your question: planet annihilation (although no longer updated) is part of Gamespy [20]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources, nothing to set it apart from the thousands of other game mods out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, and reads more like an ad than an article. The Kinslayer 08:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karn + mahabharat

The article discusses Karna, a character in the Mahabharata. The article on Karna already exists in a much better form. Also there is no need to redirect as the name of this article is not as per manual of style.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nominator said it best. Not even a redirect-worthy title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Doctor Bruno  22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & Merge all useful info to MAhabharat.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guyver Project

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Amir E. Aharoni 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - this is the reason why we have {{db-band}}. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apps Communications

Contested prod. Reason for prod was "No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." MER-C 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:CORP; spam. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Author of article looks like company founder/CEO and has spammed his website in a couple of articles previously. --DeLarge 13:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. OBM | blah blah blah 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete seems moderately notable, but the vanity accusations cited by DeLarge make a compelling countercase. Probably better to have no article than an article written by the company's CEO! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DeLarge. PJM 16:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. JordeeBec 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you find good outside sources. Cool3 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments (unless reliable sources can be provided to prove otherwise). RFerreira 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under the new spam criteria. Tagged. ColourBurst 05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, transwikied to Wiktionary. --Keitei (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English prefixes

This list comprises information on etymology, meaning and usage, and belongs better in a dictionary. I propose a transwiki merge into wiktionary:Appendix:Prefixes:English --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikitionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Terence Ong (T | C) 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. MER-C 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - seems to be a good option. --HappyCamper 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment; in the interests of full disclosure, I should point out an earlier debate on a similar article, at Talk:List_of_English_suffixes#Proposal_to_move_to_Wiktionary, which did not produce a consensus. That debate did not seem to be knowledgable about the existence of wiktionary:Appendix:Prefixes:English --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I wonder, whether the difference between a "dictionary" and an "encyclopedia" exists simply because the primary medium used is paper? This might be a source of the ambiguity on how to deal with such situations. --HappyCamper 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It isn't, and the difference is a simple one: It's the use-mention distinction. dog is a dictionary article about the word "dog". dog is an encyclopaedia article about a species of animal denoted by that word. Uncle G 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. HappyCamper, I think the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" lies in how they are used, not in the medium. Although the distinction is a somewhat blurry one (people differ in their opinion on just where the line is to be drawn), there is a distinction, and people tend to turn to encyclopedia for certain things while they tend to turn to dictionaries for other things. It seems to me that most people would expect to find this list in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. Hence, transwiki. — mark ✎ 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Mark. / Peter Isotalo 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave It more information is better than less information. Zbrock 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although my vote is destined to fail, I find this non-offensive and informative, as well as encyclopedic. If this was an article on one prefix, I would probably agree with you; a centralized list is useful and doesn't create clutter, either. Dekimasu 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freshdeuce

Non-notable art project, tagged for importance since August. No independent sources about its significance - if any. Mereda 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenga (game)

non-notable, promotional Original research, not yet notable. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Luqui (talk • contribs) is both the author of the article and the owner of http://luqui.org/, where the article links for the rules of the game. Searching, I find this message dated 2006-08-14 where the author states that he has just invented this game. This article is original research, an article on a game that has not yet been acknowledged outside of its inventor and that has not entered the corpus of human knowledge. Delete. Uncle G 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pure original research and no assertion of notability. Sounds like a made up game to advertise. For goodness sake, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Incidentally, the game has become quite popular among the intersection of the math and cs departments here at univ. of colorado, but I agree with the reasoning. Luqui 09:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly my description was too harsh. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice towards recreation, provided the article is in a much better state. The article, as it stands, is completely beyond repair. I encourage those calling for this article to be kept and rewritten to do some research and write a new article on this topic.--SB | T 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh diet

There are some concerns that this article might be a cut-and-paste of copyrighted content, see [21]. Additionally, the article seems to be a bit beyond the capabilities of Wiki cleanup. It is at best an essay or opinion piece with spiritual writings. Delete HappyCamper 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This is not cut and paste but basically quotations of authors, writers, the Sikh Holy texts and others. There were some opinions that were present, but I have deleted them to create a narrative that complies with the NPOV priciples. Please Re-Read before deletion. --Sikh-history 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blank as it does seem this article is not encyclopedia itself, however, since dietary requirements as part of a religion are acceptable in themselves (see Kashut), and I assume that Sikhism has something similar otherwise this article wouldn't exist, so it should have something in Wikipedia. Thus I can't support deletion without the intent to recreate it. Sikh-history I don't think you understand the problem with your article. You may wish to check the Kashut article for a better model. Mister.Manticore 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete My word, what a managerie of banner boxes this article has! My word, what a awful article that follows them, too! More of an essay/opinion-piece than an encylopedia article. Might be possible to clean it up, but I certainly don't envy whoever takes it on. It would probably be better to start from scratch. See Kashrut for a much better article about religious dietary laws. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Well this is an interesting case. I'm not 100% set on deletion because AfD is not here to take care of content issues, but this is one case where I think the article is so poorly done that completely wiping it out and starting from scratch wouldn't be such a bad idea. Of course if someone wants to do a total (sourced) rewrite before the AfD is complete I'd happily change my opinion to keep. On an unrelated note, it appears the originator is a role account (per the message on the userpage) and should probably be dealt with as well.--Isotope23 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if made encyclopedic.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - some discussion relating to these pages. MER-C 02:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is an important issue for Sikhs and for others. To understand dietary habits of Sikhs (and of other religions) is of significance to life and the importance of diet cannot be denied. Diet plays an key role in the lives of all and it is a matter relating to an important religion of the world. Don't you think that the world would be interested to know about the dietary habits of the Sikhs? We have similar dietary articles for Christianty, Buddhism, etc. and so I think if this article is deleted then in fairness those others should also be deleted.
    The article has been vandalised by User:sikh-history who has a set agenda - See his contributions which all only relate to a one-set-POV. He has since 23 September been changing various articles to his POV in relation to diet and Sikhism. He is deliberately changing this article and other so that they are deleted from the database so that this matter is not brought to the attention of the world as this suits his view.
    I suggest that the article is reverted to the version that I created. --Hari Singh 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete IF Hari Singh insists only on his POV. He is very quick to point the finger at Christians and lable people vandals, when his own point of view is challenged. Sikh scholars agree that meat eating is not an issue within Sikhism, yet Hari Singh keeps on insisting that it is. The article itself has been amended to reflect the views of scholars on this subject yet HariSingh through weasal words insists that his POV be maintained. We are strong supporters of sikh history (warts and all). What we are not in support of is religious fanaticism of users like Hari Singh. We will continue to work with the admins of this site (unlike Harisingh), and strongly support the wikipedia neutral point of view stance. For every Ying there is a Yang. For every action there is a reaction. Keep up the good work and keep fanatics like Hari Singh in check. There is an entire article based on this religious fanatics antics, see http://www.sikh-history.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002038. We are strongly against the srticle being reverted back to Hari Singh's original. --Sikh-history 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT a religious text. How many times do these articles telling people how to be good Sikhs have to come through here? I swear there's at least one a month.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or revertion to the neutral (Non-POV) version created by Hari Singh . Totally agree with ;♥ «Charles A. L.», currently it is total POV and original research in meat eater section--Sikh 1 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not really what I said. Just to be clear.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Revert To HariSingh's biased and opinionated POV. Hari Singh's biased view's should not be allowed to prevail. Also MER-C has established that Hari Singh has made false accusation's about vandalism against --Sikh-history. Apoligies should be made with regard to this. Keep Religious fanatics off Wikipedia.--Sikh-history 07:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Review current changes to article and major re-write to see if it is acceptable. --Sikh-history 14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it all, let God sort it all out... --Roninbk t c e #

15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep IF Hari Singh & Sikh-history can sort out their differences. Then major rewrite--Sikh 1 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sielc

Fails WP:CORP. ProD removed without real improvements. Article was created together with some links, which gave the impression of a Spam effort .Other chromatography companies with articles get a lot more results on Google and so on, indicating that the relative absence of Sielc is not caused by working in a specialized field, but by being only a minor player (for Wikipedia standards, that is). Fram 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clark's powers in Smallville

Does not meet WP:Notability, discussion started HERE Bignole 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Supercruft. OBM | blah blah blah 16:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Page fails WP:Notability spectacularly. It would not be possible to objectify the article. Wisdom89 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How super...fluous. PJM 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bwahahaha how unsuper. Whispering(talk/c) 23:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aki Hoshino

Does not meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 15:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aly333 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't like bikini-model articles either. Fortunately or unfortunately she appears on several variety shows on TV (as a panel member or game contestant, not as eye candy) and also acts in Japanese dramas. The article isn't very good, but she is notable. Dekimasu 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a great stub, but the article on the ja.wikipedia establishes notability. — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per regular appearances on several Japanese TV shows, commercials, etc. Neier 23:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She`s really famous in Japan. Diotti 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. My philosophy regarding notability is that the bar should be fairly low. This article needs to be expanded with a few pictures and the name of her agent. Even though the general public might not care much about women who regularly appear in photo layouts in men's magazines, British Page 3 girls, etc., they probably qualify minimally as "notable". RickReinckens 20:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasarticle was speedily deleted by Tawker to allow original article to be moved back. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dakini

This article is completely composed of bogus original research. Dakini is an important concept in Tibetan Buddhism, the author of this original research article has moved a properly researched (though not correctly cited) article to Dakini(Buddhism) to make way for this new age tripe. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Dakini(Buddhism) back into Dakini. Dakini as it exists right now is unsourced and the fact that there are 2 versions of this article would appear to be a due to content conflict between 2 individuals. AfD is not the solution here & there only needs to be one Dakini article. WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF are what is called for here.--Isotope23 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The content of the article put up for deletion has no basis in fact. It is completely unsupportable. Also, this is not a dispute between two individuals. The original Dakini article which was moved to Dakini(Buddhism) is the result of editing by multiple editors over several years. It was unilaterally moved and replaced by complete rubbish which is completely made-up and unrelated to any scholarly study of the concept. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Those last two paragraphs on dakinis in Tibetan tantric practice are (I think) accurate, if unsourced (though I think they come from well-regarded books on Tibetan Buddhism by Reginald Ray). I recommend they be preserved in any merge, perhaps with a request for citations. — Sandover 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment exactly. A merge does not necessarily denote that the entirety fo both articles needs to exist in one merged article. What can be sourced from the current Dakini should be retained. What cannot be sourced should be removed from the article as unverified. From the looks of it Dakini(Buddhism) is well sourced and the info there should be incorporated back into the Dakini with a redirect from Dakini(Buddhism) to Dakini. The point is that all of this effort could be boldly done without an AfD; This is a content issue and there is nothing here that needs to be deleted. If there is a problem with this because specific editors don't agree with this course of action or are reverting changes without discussion than this is a situation that needs to be dealt with through a Request for Comment or Mediation. Bottom line, there is really no reason for an AfD here.--Isotope23 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to make room to move the original article back. A.J.A. 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, There is no reason to delete to move original content back... that is just a move and requires no deletion.--Isotope23 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So, are you saying I should simply speedy this? So the original article can be moved back? Because the suggested material to be merged was actually taken from the original article and is already in it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment you can't speedy it, there is no speedy reason that covers this, but I suggest going to the Admin noticeboard and requesting that an admin undo the move that was done without any discussion. I understand why you AfD'd this now... I forgot about the History.--Isotope23 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a speedy reason that covers it, to move back an article that was moved without consensus. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Under G6? You could try it. I'm not sure this qualified as non-controversial, but you could tag it as such and see if an admin will fix it as a housekeeping move. I'd still explain the situation on AN/I so the admin understands why it is tagged CSD.--Isotope23 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 711 (Quality Comics)

Non-notable super-hero. Pkomano 16:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Golden-age comics detective who is technically part of the DC universe. Google shows a small number of hits, but it does verify the basic facts of the character and is more than one might expect for something published in the 40s. Here is a biography, for example. No convincing reason given to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it non-notable. 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What a bizarre article to go after for a first edit. —Xezbeth 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any superhero is notable. 11kowrom 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All comic characters should have an entry. Rhino131, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. For historical purposes. Brian Boru is awesome 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy metal

Non notable term, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. IronChris | (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, the term Power metal is much more appropriate and accurate. The bands listed have, as far as I know, never described themselves as "fantasy metal." 151.188.16.20 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. metal-genre-cruft Spearhead 17:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fantasy article. Punkmorten 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Realistic delete, per above. PJM 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism that has no sources. ColourBurst 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's description not a real genre. Pasajero 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Inhumer 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linderdaum Engine

Delete. Non-notable. (History: Proded by User:Salad Days on Sept 25: "No notability offered, no games appear to use this "engine". Removed by User:80.152.5.244 without comment. Salad Days tried to reprod it for the same reason, but User:Petri Krohn removed this as you can't readd a prod.) --Karnesky 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails to meet WP:SOFTWARE notability guidelines. Never been used by a notable game, no indepedent, non-trivial coverage shown. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Richhoncho 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I admit that this is borderline, and that the original article was primarily intended for self-promotion. However, it has since been rewritten, and as such the arguments from the original AFD, for the most part, do not apply. By extension, a comment made prior to said rewrite is used as the primary basis for deletion, and it is equally inapplicable.--SB | T 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric D. Snider

This article was originally deleted through this AfD. A DRV consensus decided to overturn the deletion and relist for new consideration. While everyone admired the thoroughness and thoughtful of the previous AfD's closer, consensus held that WP:SPAs had unduly influenced the debate, and that the course of discussion might have changed near the end of the debate. Please consult both the previous AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This debate will be semiprotected to curb spamming. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:VSCA. Blatant self-promotion abuse of Wikipedia. Minor film critic, minor comic musician. I don't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original AfD, WP:V, WP:BIO, etc. See also Snide Remarks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I just don't see a strong case for WP:BIO here. If Keep is the consensus thought this article needs a good hard edit. I've rarely seen more blatent misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes...--Isotope23 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. Wildthing61476 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I requested the deletion review as I feel the original article can be rewritten to satisfy the concerns voiced here and on the original AfD. I plan to perform this rewrite within the next 48 hours; if participants in this discussion could withhold judgment until that window of opportunity has passed I would greatly appreciate it. Alanyst 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Article has been rewritten. Please revisit your comments if you have already given input above. If you feel the article needs improvement but satisfies WP:BIO and WP:VSCA, please give input on the article's talk page. If you still think it qualifies for deletion, please indicate so in order to show that you have taken the new version of the article into consideration. Thanks! Alanyst 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He's not notable.--CyberGhostface 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note -- The above comment was made prior to my rewrite. Alanyst 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

*Neutral pending Alanyst's rewrite. --Aaron 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Voting below after Alanyst's rewrite.

  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article passes WP:BIO on two counts, (notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events, multiple non-trivial published works,) for both his appearance on Dr Demento and the Paramoun Studios controversy. --Roninbk t c # 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Not every item in the news media is encyclopedically notable. Much material even from well known mainstream news sources is not encyclopedically notable. The Dr. Demento reference is unsourced and may well be a trivial mention. The significance of even a substantial mention on that show may also be contested Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Published author with multiple works. That alone should be reason. --NThurston 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Not every author is encyclopedically notable. Take a look at 25 cent bargain bin at the discount bookstore next time you pass one. Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Saw some Shakespeare in there last time I looked.
But that's a very subjective (hence POV) interpretation of notability. I think our general policy is to trust publishers to decide what's worth publishing and what's not, which makes it more objective. Having multiple published books makes someone notable by definition. Period. I don't know what ruler you would use to determine who is a "minor writer." At a minimum, his books sold very well regionally, and he was very well-known locally. --NThurston 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. --Bill.matthews 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. Distinctly minor writer who got his not-even-fifteen-minutes of fame by being interviewed briefly on public radio. Meh (and I speak as a regular listener of On The Media). --Calton | Talk 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The re-write addresses very well the "self-promotion" problem. The other major issue raised is notability. By all objective measures, his published work - long-running newspaper column and several published books, meet the usual notability standard for authors. Like him or not, he's notable. --NThurston 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vyse (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 3, 2006.
  • Delete. Despite Alanyst's rewrite, I'm afraid I'm still not convinced of his notability. The article still has some WP:V issues as well. --Aaron 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Might not satisfy you on the notability aspect, but I sourced the Dr. Demento stuff to improve verifiability. Are there other WP:V concerns? Alanyst 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He has enough aspects of notability for different reasons to, in my mind, amount to being notable despite the fact that no individual source of notability meets WP:BIO. (I discount the Dr. Demento bit, as unsourced, but if reliably and independently sourced that would be a clear keep per WP:MUSIC all by itself.) GRBerry 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Dr. Demento statements are now sourced. Alanyst 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The sourcing for the Dr. Demento information is on a student's personal account on Indiana University's computers. Not a primary source. One of his books does come up on Amazon.com, but is not in stock and appears to never have been, given the lack of information. Amazon lists the publisher as BYU, his former university. Do regional-interest books published by universities establish notability? Vic sinclair 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Clicking on the Playlists link from www.drdemento.com takes you to the archive at the Indiana University page. This is part of the official page. I had to verify that fact myself, as it looked funny to me too. --Roninbk t c e # 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry's comments and Alanyst's rewrite. The Paramount banning was certainly newsworthy and got nationwide coverage. Agne 07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't believe he meets the notability standard. Eusebeus 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejiduce to any further modifications. Creating an article on the series as opposed to having individual articles on each game is an editorial decision, and outside the scope of this AFD.--SB | T 02:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gus Goes to Cybertown

The article does not make a claim as to the notability of the subject. It is also linkless. Vectro 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or create an article on the "Gus" series and merge into that. A quick Googling shows this to be pretty notable by kids' software standards, including such accolades as being selected for the "1994 International Summer Consumer Electronics Innovations '94 Software Showcase". Hurrah. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you cite a source for that claim, and can you show us that winning the award is an important achievement in the software world? Keep in mind that just because it won a minor award does not make it notable. Hundreds of works of all kinds win awards yearly, but not all of them are worth making articles for. A game that won Best Shooter of E3? Notable for sure. A game that the Anytown, USA Librarian's Award for Teaching Addition Pretty Well? Not so much. Also, delete, not-notable. ♠PMC♠ 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Source is this, which is a cache of the company's press page. The Innovations awards are part of the Consumer Electronics Show which absolutely IS a big deal. For what it's worth, the Innovations are still given out... a list of 2006 honorees is here and includes big names like GE, Kodak, Samsung, and Philips. It's absolutely not some insignificant regional award by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article on the series, rename as apropriate and don't create individual articles on the sequels. Thryduulf 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are good arguments both ways here — on the one hand, the band fails our usual standards for inclusion. However, there is evidence of significance that would nullify those concerns. As such, there is no consensus that this article should be deleted.--SB | T 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaytanhousuja

Apparently non-notable Finnish band. No record deal, and they don't even do live music. Instead their music is only available on the Internet. The original Finnish article was nominated for deletion, and the result was evenly matched between keep and delete. I don't think this is notable enough even within Finland, let alone outside it. Delete. JIP | Talk 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless it can be shown that they satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is established. Punkmorten 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and everything. --Easyas12c 19:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please reference this claim, or it can be considered void. Punkmorten 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, internet-phenomena from Finland, in fi.wiki was only nominated for deletion, because band has no "real" recordings (which is usually needed in Finnish Wikipedia). --Tbonefin 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added their songs and competition activity to the article. It's difficult to cite radio shows and newspapers without archives though, let alone grassroots support. --TuukkaH 11:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is established. --SM 13:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has reverted to the prior version of the article and withdrawn the nomination. Uncle G 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three-point stance

Delete per WP:WEBSpeedy keep. Looking through the edit history, I know realize this is a football article that was vandalized early in its history. Whoops... --- RockMFR 17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frontera Grill

Seems to be a directory entry with nothing to say of note. I do not know if the restaurant has any notability (perhaps in the US it has), but in any case it would be more appropriate to merge in to the article about the owner (Rick Bayless) - assuming he himself is worthy of inclusion. Emeraude 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The restaurant seems to have a great deal of notability, based on its ranking by the IHT. Also, the chef seems to be very notable. --- RockMFR 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Bill.matthews 00:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable restaurant and Chef in Chicago. Needs to be expanded. — Linnwood 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Not even close to AFD material. I do not know if the restaurant has any notability: try research, as even the most trivial of searches would show. Google News, say, or cracking open this month's Gourmet magazine (page 204). --Calton | Talk 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But is it the restaurant that's notable (in which case the article needs to say why) or the owner (in which case merge the restaurant article into the owner)? As I said to start with, it reads as simply a directory entry. Emeraude 08:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only is this a notable, award winning restaurant, but they have also released some salsa and chip products that are available in grocery stores under the Frontera name.Patken4 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Cracknell

Non-notable political activist. Fails WP:Bio. Catchpole 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. According to the article, she's never been elected to a single office on any level, or even attempted to run for one. --Aaron 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11 (spam). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demonic computers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olean Center Mall

Here we go again. This article is about a mall which (the article does not say but my oh so fantastic research shows) is in Olean, New York. You can find its website here and convince yourself that this does not belong on Wikipedia. No reliable third party coverage, no hope of ever being more than a directory of shops in the mall, no apparent sign that this mall has any significance beyond the service it provides to the local community, nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Like, delete, OK?. FairHair 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally grody. --Aaron 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: like gag me with a spoon already! --It's-is-not-a-genitive 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the above. Emeraude 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm usually all for including malls, but this mall is ridiculously small. -newkai t-c 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Malls are in the business of renting space to retail tenants. Article does not assert, much less evidence, meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – Gurch 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Krider

if we indeed use the criteria mentioned in this entry (wrote papers, lead group of people, was an editor) we would have to include all professors of meteorology and numerous editors of journals - thousands of meteorologists. I think that we need more (perhaps Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal) or Charney Award for living meteorologists? Pflatau 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

delete (or make entry stronger) Pflatau 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

delete - currently fails the average professor test. Thryduulf 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete pschemp | talk 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Miggs

Delete. Article is very small and has very little relevance to the Hannibal canon. It is not linked from any other page and has only two categories. He isn't notable enough to feature his own article and his entire character could very easily be summarized in the Silence of the Lambs article.--CyberGhostface 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I remember the character from the movie, but can't think of any reason why he would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. This article can't be expanded beyond its present size, making it almost a dicdef. No reason to merge this anywhere since he wasn't at all important to the plot. ergot 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen J. Kopp

Nom & vote ...
Del: John Denver's syrupy tribute notwithstanding, i am pro-WV. But he appears n-n, in heading one of 6 state institutions labeled as "universities" in a state with 0.6% of the US population, 50th in median income, and presumably not an exciting academic system. Did i mention his notability is not asserted, let alone described?
--Jerzy•t 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. "West Virginia isn't a big enough state for this university to count" doesn't strike me as much of a deletion argument, I'm afraid. --Aaron 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I've added some external links to give it some WP:V oomph. --Aaron 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I guess We usually keep most university's senior leader. I'm not sure they all merit it so individual evaluation would be reasonable. The nominator only gave us an assumption of unworthiness, not an explanation or argument that unworthiness is the right answer. GRBerry 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. theProject 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pg games

Not a notable games company. Speedy delete (it's a repost) was both deleted and later contested, probably by the same person under a different user name. Google gives very few hits when searching for founder's name + company name [23] [24]. A search for Pg games gives 9,440 hits, but most seem irrelevant. Further claims the article "provides a unique insight into the game making theory and philosophy behind pg games", but it's just a list of home made games. - TexMurphy 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Bill.matthews 00:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as reposted material (G4). ColourBurst 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EasyToGive

Prod removed without comment. Promotion for a website that, per the article, "benefits causes, charities and fundraising efforts worldwide." Per the site itself, it's a social networking site where people may engage in fundraising activities. Either way, it generates zero relevant google hits and no ranking on Alexa. Totally fails WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Pretty quiet 'community' too. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dekimasu 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire of Atlantium

Vanity article for a non-notable fake country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairHair (talk • contribs).

previous nomination
  • Close as bad faith nom / Keep - FairHair is making this nomination in bad faith, in retribution against User:Gene Poole over incidents related to Conch Republic over the last several days, which have attracted administrator attention [25] and required an ANI report [26]. This article is about a micronation, not a country, and the article is clear in stating that it's a micronation and meets the criteria used for determining if micronations are notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment what exactly is the criteria established for Micronation notablity? --- The Bethling(Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC):
reply There isn't an established criteria, there is however a working proposal developed by User:Gene Poole Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That proposed guideline is what has been used repeatedly to nuke people's web-only, or thought-up-between-high-school-classes, Micronation articles. To meet the criteria, the Micronation has to have widespread press coverage, and a real-world presence of some sort (even if that's souvenier material production). One could posit higher criteria (some sort of actual territory claim) but there seems little point; the ones that have a real world presence of any sort and press coverage is a small enough group, all of which now have WP articles. Very few below that threshold do. Sealand and Hutt River Province are not the only Micronations of note. Georgewilliamherbert 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's WAR between micronations!! Prince Christopher I of Vikesland also recently tried his hand at provocative brinkmanship against Atlantium over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Vikesland. As a representative of a non-micronation uh... nation, I'll be renominating Atlantium for afd as something made up in a living room once the little skirmish blows over ( I was going to anyway after Prince Christopher's subtle gambit, but it looks like a Conch Republic operative beat me to it). Ready the peacekeeping forces! Or Delete as not encyclopedically notable and failing WP:NFT if this current afd goes ahead. Bwithh 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Micronations are some bullshit. john k 20:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Some micronations on Wikipedia have been noticed (not recognized) by real governments, viz. Sealand, Republic of Minerva. Who are you to say they're bullshit? Gazpacho 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is notable but block Gene_Poole and FairHair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freddulany (talk • contribs).
  • Keep The Empire of Atlantium is Notable, the politics shouldn't matter Bo 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. Gazpacho 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lonely Planet has recently released a guide to Micronations[27] which includes Atlantium. This book therefore offers both notability and verifiability to many of these pseudo-states.Crico 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's nice , but Amazon describes that book as a "humourous mock guidebook"[28]. Bwithh 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Reply micornations not taken seriously by the vast majority of the world, of course the guide is a mockery! Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's a humorous mock guidebook, but so are Molvania and Phaic Tan and they warrant a Wikipedia article. WP:NFT states that something made up one afternoon in school can be included in Wikipedia if someone researches it thoroughly and writes a book, academic paper or magazine article about it. The Lonely Planet book does that for many of these places so that should be the end of the argument. It doesn't really matter whether they're bullshit or not. Crico 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Molvanian and Phaic Tan are parody creations by professional comic writers. Things like Vikesland and Atlantium appear to be serious creations by amateur eccentrics (to put it politely). Bwithh 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I really have trouble seeing how these micronations are more notable than the "country" my friends created back in high school (perhaps if the web had been around things would different :), and WP:NFT seems like such a natural response. However given the multiple references and the linked article it looks like the Empire has passed my threshold for notablity. -- The Bethling(Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious bad faith nomination. For the record it's also the sixth time it's been nominated since 2002 - having survived all previous attempts - so surely some sort of double, triple (or more) jeopardy rule should apply - otherwise this silliness is going to continue repeating itself every time some noob gets a bee in their bonnet because they don't understand Wikipedia policies and decide that Gene_Poole is the devil incarnate, and the cause of all their woes. --Gene_poole 08:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. So long as this article subject has tenuous credibility at best, it's fair game under WP:CCC Bwithh 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic nonsense. - Marc Averette 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: FairHair has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Marc Averette by Georgewilliamherbert, based on a history of suspiciously similar argumentative editing behaviour. --Gene_poole 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Georgewilliamherbert has been accused of being sockpuppets of Centauri and Gene_Poole by Averette, based on a history of suspiciously similar argumentative editing behavior. - Marc Averette 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: a vanity article, largely written by the person who runs the online club, and which has led to a great deal of infighting and other nonsense. Jonathunder 18:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bad faith nomination per User:Georgewilliamherbert. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Someone renominating an article for deletion should be required to notify everyone who voted or commented on any previous proposal for deletion. JamesMLane t c 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a saved island/city/nation Simcity game on my Playstation that I call Averetteville. Should that get an article? - Marc Averette 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a micronation (as noted above), so some other indication of notability must be in the article. Looking closely, I don't think the one column newspaper article qualifies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of good references for my liking. What's changed since the last X number of times this has come up for deletion? Lankiveil 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, I voted keep last time, I vote again to keep it. Piecraft 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Piecraft said. I have a feeling that the nominator may very well be Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger. Absolute bad faith nomination. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Canon of Sherlock Holmes

Hm. Well, I don't want to use this word, but I'm not sure how else to describe it. Original research. Perhaps some of the summaries of the "extracanonical" works can be incorporated elsewhere? -- Merope Talk 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Reads like an original research essay. Wickethewok 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is a notable topic and the subject of study for more than a century. Whole books (such as The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes) have been written about the semi-canon material written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but not considered part of the core set of Holmes stories. The article does have somewhat of an essay feel to it due to the signed "conclusion" section, but that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment According to the Canon (fiction) article, the concept of a literary "canon" originated with Holmes scholars attempts to differentiate the core Holmes stories from the many pastiches, parodies, etc. In other words, Holmes was the first fictional work to be discussed in terms of having a "canon". This further strengthens my already-ironclad opinion that the topic is worthy of an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Blank and Start Over The subject itself is noteworthy, so I have no problem with that, but I'm not sure of this article. I'd suggest it being part of the main Sherlock Holmes article, but that might take up too much space, so it would be best to keep seperate.
  • Keep for now and cleanup Desperately needs referencing, but as per Starblind, I'm going to give the creator the benefit of the doubt for now. Cleanup, reference, and remove the essay-like "conclusion". If it still lacks references in a couple of months, reconsider for deletion. I don't think this is fancruft by the way. It's far from sufficiently obsessively detailed over trivia. Bwithh 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but get rid of the speculative stuff. Stev0 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan, especially his note about the historical nature of discussing Holmes' canon. This article needs clean up but there is enough there worth salvaging. Agne 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snide Remarks

{{db-context}} tag removed, so I'm bringing it here. Single-line article with no assertion of notability. Aaron 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as lacking context... or redirect to author if he survives his own AfD.--Isotope23 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't merit its own article. Alanyst 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron (music)

Neologism. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 17:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems more of a protologism than a neologism. No WP:V whatsoever. Kill it. --Aaron 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Bill.matthews 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-coined genre term, obviously with no sources. Prolog 19:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, there are nontrivial works discussing her art. --- Deville (Talk) 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Singer

Doesn't pass WP:BIO, the first book has no mention of her in its author list on worldcat and the second doesn't seem to exist at all. Would say delete as non-notable. Localzuk(talk) 18:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think she passes WP:BIO because of the multiple reviews of her art. See the reviews section of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. First book has essay discussing her work. Second also has essay discussing her work. Additional reviews added.Dmdesign 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIO needs to be stretched this way and that to find a reason to keep this person. Simply non-notable. Eusebeus 13:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Less categories perhaps? New Zealand biographical / New Zealand artists / British artists and artist-related article? Dmdesign 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple reviews and descriptions of her work on various sites. Dismas|(talk) 08:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources and references meet my interpretation of WP:BIO. The books cited in the article are about her work, not by her. --MCB 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while deleting the history, since the content doesn't have anything to do with the reason of the redirect. - Bobet 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult of Cthulhu

The fictional religion is dealt with in the article on Cthulhu; the real-world organization seems to lack notability. See Talk:Cult of Cthulhu Nareek 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing to merge. Real world part seems to be vanity by the cult's founder 'Darrick Dishaw'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cthulhu cheaply.--Isotope23 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Article creator: User:Darrick666. Cult's founder: "Darrick Dishaw". Michael Kinyon 10:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-questionable possible vanity content is already included elsewhere. Badbilltucker 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Ph'nglui mglw-naf'h Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl phtagn, that's what I say. David | Talk 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW; no votes to delete other than nom and (possibly confused or insulted) article author. NawlinWiki 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9th Street Art Exhibition

nn group--ITY 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Note: this nom is the editor's first contribution to the encyclopedia. Akradecki 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't a group, it was a historical, ground-breaking exhibition for its time during a critical period of art history, that was a gathering of a number of notable artists. Meets WP:V and is well-sourced. Akradecki 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Of course I do not have access to several of the sources, but the article seems to fit either the first or second of my automatic keep criteria in that it is well referenced. Given this, and the possibility that the nomination is in bad faith, I reccomend a speedy keep. Cool3 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Would it be possible to change the heading to: "Ninth Street" Show which more reflects the original poster? Marika Herskovic 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article needs editing, it is still a little shrill in its appearance. The Ninth Street shows were both real and important to the downtown New York art world in the fifties. As were the Tenth Street galleries and the Whitney Annuals. Modernist 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thank you for appreciating the article. The heading of the article is not clear. There was only one "Ninth Street" Show May 21st to June 10th, 1951. For the first time the public was able to see the best examples of the New York School avant-garde. The "9th Street Art Exhibition" may refer to a collective title of exhibitions on the 9th Street. This article is about one very significant exhibition. There were cooperatives like the Tanager Gallery on 10th Street but it opened later in 1952. The Whitney Annuals were very important but had nothing to do with the "Ninth Street" Show. This show was organized and hung by the artists themselves. It would be inportant to change the heading to "Ninth Street" Show. Marika Herskovic 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Vote changed. See below. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment please try to be more thoughtful about focusing your articles, they tend to be all over the place, you tend to overuse bold type and double spaces, please look and study the way most articles are constructedModernist 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: corrected. Marika Herskovic 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup per Cool3 and Modernist. Really, really clean up. --Aaron 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Second vote cast by User:Marika Herskovic struck for now. As it stands, the {{db}} template adds the entire AfD page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please get your formatting fixed. Also, please strike your first vote on this AfD if you change your vote.Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 11:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE{{db-Protector 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}} I find this discussion quite demeaning. I saw the usefulness of wikipedia therefore I decided to contribute. To demand is easy, to differentiate requires learning and to be responsible is the source of all success. I believe that this article is ready for speedy deletion. Thank you. Protector 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This deletion process started by nn group: ITY. Who is ITY? "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:ITY." Should the initiator of the deletion process have no responsibility? Protector 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This whole thing is getting really confusing. The creator of the page, User:Marika Herskovic who also goes by Protector keeps changing votes, and now has created an identical article entitled Ninth Street Show. I don't know if this is an attempt to circumvent the AfD or just a newbie's misguided means of improving the article. I've tried to help this person extensively (see their talk page, which they've recently blanked), but I'm now bowing out. Akradecki 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I redirected the duplicate article to the original. NawlinWiki 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Muehlebach Brewing Company

non-notable company Andy Andy 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — Andy Andy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong keep - This strikes me as a heavy handed action by a user who has no other contribution history. The afd was added within a few minutes of my initial creating the article. The company is the basis for the Muehlebach fortune that resulted in the creation of Harry S. Truman's headquarters Muehlebach Hotel in Kansas City as well as the Muehlebach Field -- the first home for the professional Kansas City Athletics and Kansas City Chiefs. I created the article to tell those two structure stories. Americasroof 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems perfectly verifiable; a quick Google search uncovered this history page and this one. Was Kansas City's second largest brewing company in 1879, and by the end of WW2 was producing 160k barrels per annum. Not quite sure why this user's first (and so far only) edits would be to make this nomination. --DeLarge 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as above. No reason to delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nomination for deletion made by a single purposed account who lacks familiarity with our inclusionary criteria. RFerreira 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Rferreira. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Maldini

Definitely a crystal ball. Angelo 18:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - cute, though! BlueValour 18:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We'll be watching. PJM 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • Talk 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Both the fact that Paolo Maldini has a son and that the number 3 is designated for him is mentioned in the article on Paolo. – Elisson • Talk 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Paolo Maldini, seeing as his father is his only reason for notability. Oldelpaso 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Coment - I think that for a person redirect is appropriate where there is sufficient notability to be indexed in the encyclopaedia but not enough for a separate article. Here, there is no notability as yet. BlueValour 20:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yeah, and I'm looking forward to Jordan Larsson signing for Celtic... cute, but gotta go! Camillus (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Not notable in his own right, but more notable than the children of royals (e.g.), whose only achievement is birth. He is footballing royalty, but has at least shown signs of sporting promise. sʟυмɢυм • т • c  21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Paolo Maldini - it is possible that someone who has heard of the son may type his name into the search box, and there is information about him in the article about the father. Besides, redirects are cheap. Qwghlm 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very unlikely to be notable as a footballer at aged 10.Dodge 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Star Trek fans

WP:NOT Arutdy 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Valrith 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Emeraude 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Or at best beam over to Memory Alpha --Roninbk t c # 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment license incompatibility issues prevent directly copy and paste to MemAlpha. ColourBurst 21:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Highly illogical... --Roninbk t c # 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. zephyr2k 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't even get me started. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you add this guy. No, for real, delete it. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems well-sourced and this is the kind of stuff Wikipedia's good at.--T. Anthony 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, quirky article but I'm not convinced by the nominator's arguments. Cedars 11:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete trekfanlistcruft, and most of the entries have no supporting refs, and it conflates real and fictional people, and who cares anyway ? There's no List of notable Jorge Luis Borges fans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Borges is a person, not a show, so you can't have a guest appearance. This is admittedly an unencyclopedic topic, but Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia so it fits.--T. Anthony 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
dot dot dot Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently subjective Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both subjective and useless. We'll have List of notable Green Acres fans next. Eeeek! Carlossuarez46 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
We do have Category:Science fiction fans and List of notable boxing fans.--T. Anthony 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whatever its shortcomings, the article is quite useful and informative. RedZebra 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This would make interesting trivia on a Star Trek mainpage, but I assume it's not there for reasons of space/flow. I'd say that it is noteable as there are several people on the list who have since appeared in the series because of their fandom (Tom Morello, Kelsey Grammer, even Stephen Hawking), and the cross-over between fictional series is also noteable - for example, Leonard Nimoy has appeared in the Simpsons, William Shatner, Family Guy, and both plus others in Futurama). If all this information is listed elsewhere on Wikipedia (and it is!) I see no reason to remove this particular list. Curiousbadger 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very few are referenced, and the reasoning for many is shaky at best (for example, does attending a film's premiere automatically make one a fan of the film?) Bottom line: I don't think that tracking who is a fan of what is a reasonable job for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. Hemmingsen 17:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per, well, Starblind. Sandstein 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 285 Hamilton

Yahoo!, Google, et. al started NEAR this building, not IN it. [29] Presumably this also holds true for 284 Hamilton and 286 Hamiliton, but we don't have articles about them. Stev0 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with above, plus unattributable statements ("Some say..."). Surprised that this has been here nearly a year. Emeraude 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there were such a thing as an {{nn-building}} tag, this would be a Speedy Delete. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did some web searching and still find nothing particularly notable about this building. Sfba 08:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article tries to claim notability by making dubious claims of companies starting "near the building", not encyclopediac and not noteworthy. Hu 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laromlab

The article looks like self-promotion; I think it is far from meeting the criteria at WP:Music. A google search for " Hate the Player, Not the Gameboy" has a single hit, at myspace. (contested prod; original author was user:Laromlab). Aleph-4 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, Myspace != notability, AmitDeshwar 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • if you google laromlab numerous articles in magazines across the country and world come up, as well as some record label information. i came across this from another site, so I think that pretty much solidifies it. Just becasue a band or musician does not meet the exposure standards of few, does not give them the right to delet the musicians article. Nothng is being promoted here! Its merely a history of the musician from what I can see!*Do Not Delete. Does not Fails WP:MUSIC, Myspace != notability, Shandog 04:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.111.228 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, needs to establish notability better. Monni 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the information contained in the article is unverified. I do not see any reliable sources that have discussed this artist (a myspace site is definitely not a reliable source). Thus, since Wikipedia is not not a webspace provider or an indiscriminate collection of information, this article should be deleted. Notability is not policy, and there are adequate and independent grounds for deletion aside from notability and WP:MUSIC. We should rest on policy to the exclusion of notability wherever possible. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Beare

Non-notable local politician. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

delete - doesn't mention anything that is notable about him. Mapetite526 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
delete - disputed prod, but nothing notable. -Steve Sanbeg 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
don't delete - Notbale as he was listed in the Irish Who's Who, (was formerly an adviser to Fine Gael in Ireland (main opposition party) and has achieved in Scotland the biggest swing from the Governing party in living memory. I think this entry needs to take these into account and be amended ratehr than deleted. -Leaghton 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I'm not too clear on UK government structure. Scotland is a nation, so Fife is a first level sub-national unit. It is the logical, but by no means real, equivalent to a U.S. state. It is the real, but not logical, equivalent to a U.S. county. I think the real comparison is more meaningful, especially given the size of the electorate. I therefore consider deletion appropriate, as there is no evidence that he meets the lots of press coverage test. GRBerry 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - He's important to the people he represents. Its a clean, well written article. --Alpharigel 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge Stress (original band) into it. The current article was cut and pasted from the 'original band' article so I'm merging the histories too. At one point, the articles weren't about the same band, but there's really not enough content in the history to start an article about the other band (it would get deleted under csd a7). - Bobet 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the discussion was transcluded at both the october 2 and october 4 pages. If you have a problem with me closing it early, leave me a comment, thanks. - Bobet 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress (band)

This is an article about a band which released, according to the article, one LP, one single and one 12"; a CD of their back catalogue has since been produced. It does not appear that their releases were on a major label, as failure to be signed by a major label was cited as the reason for the band folding. The article was very spammy, I cleaned it a bit. I do not see any credible assertion of notability, but it may be that Someone Out There knows of some additional data which will establish the importance of the group.

This nomination was originally closed out of process after no input by User:Parsssseltongue, citing bad faith nomination" (no evidence appears to have been advanced to support this assertion) and has been relisted following a debate at deletion review. Guy 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD general criteria #1 (patent nonsense). Wikipedia is not a place to promote schoolboy nonsense, please see WP:NFT. Gwernol 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third briefs

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

i dont think it's a hoaxbut it may be a joke Kowlse 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I have worked in UK schools for thirty plus years and never heard of the game. Pretty stupid rules anyway - surely it would be simpler to lift the skirt, not pull it down. There is a Range secondary school in Formby, but whether there is a uniform that includes school skirts I don't know, and I wouldn't have thought that Merseyside schoolboys would dress in a skirt for just a Mars bar! Anyway, clearly a hoax, maybe based in wishful thinking on the part of a peurile contributor, but plainly for deletion. Emeraude 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable game. Dertdad 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — Dertdad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete for obvious reasons above. Puerile is the appropriate word. Fan-1967 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly not in the scope of a true game or any thing. TheRanger 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT zephyr2k 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is not a hoax, it's real, and for the benefit of everyone here on Wikipedia. Lighten up, people, this article shows the funny side of society. It's not a hoax, very genuine. Really. Deserves to be a WP:GA. Coxingle 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — Coxingle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Whether or not it's a hoax, it's not at all notable. And as other editors have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a place to post ideas you came up with one random day. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete following Coxingle's reasoning. WP:NFT by 10 year olds. Bwithh 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this is so far from a WP:GA it's ridiculous. Lighten up, kids, it's just a stupid game, you can keep playing it in the privacy of your own bars and we can keep the garbage off. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in Formby one day. Punkmorten 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no this isn't another socky edit.. Wiki not for things made up in school one day, nothing on google about it. If it doesn't exist on google then it obviously isn't notable enough or verifiable. Also delete this sock mountain.--Andeh 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Third briefs is notable - Leslie Bibb has made it so. Oasis9 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Oasis9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep, notable game, verified, I can confirm it exists. --12Fires 15:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 12Fires (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete With Fan-1967. Also not verified and google search finds no non-wikipedia references. Can't this be speedied or snowballed? Per WP:NFT and the fact that all keep !votes are first edits from what look like single purpose accounts. --Siobhan Hansa 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, even though no web references. You should play it! WP:GA Ploydoer 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Ploydoer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Extremely notable game; well-known in schools across the UK. -QanderVerrs 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: QanderVerrs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep I've heard of this; it's a game that's widely played in the UK, almost as known as the exicornt is. --EddieSegoura 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Plyceblack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (requested keep in another deleted hoax afd) Please discount this comment by self-styled impersonator of a banned user. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely notable game, mentioned on 96.6 TFM and Q103 fairly recently. --Blangibillock 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Blangibillock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep. Notable, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair played this in the gardens of Downing Street a year ago. --XFowl4 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: XFowl4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep per nom above, and the above incident is verifiable. --DaceMaker 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DaceMaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep, one of the best articles on Wikipedia, WP:V is met, not WP:CSD material, notable game, take this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration if you've got a problem with it. --Zephram Stark (I'm Back!!) 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: TheSumOfYourLightFromYorkshire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete with all possible speed per WP:NFT. --TeaDrinker 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel today

Clearly an advert for a magazine, apparently (from use of 'we') written by the magazine or its staff; biased POV issues, and external links to biased POV magazines. Additionally, not wikified, full of grammar errors. Emeraude 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's an advertisment because it is a straight copy and paste from this copyrighted advertisment ("Copyright 2006 israel today Magazine. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited."). This is being used as an example in the discussion of extending CSD criterion #A8 to cover copied-and-pasted corporate advertisments at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's a copyright violation, just blank it and list it at WP:CP. Never mind, I'll do it myself. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 10:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The War of the Roses (Shakespeare)

These plays are not usually called "The War of the Roses," and, in fact, simply consist of all Shakespeare's English history plays save King John. This subject is already dealt with at Shakespearean history, although that article should be improved. john k 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A6. --Nishkid64 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Santin

Page is nothing more than an attack page for a user at Wikipedia. Not to mention that it violates WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Request speedy delete. Ramsquire 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cargoitalia

Article about a corporation that shows no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Appears to be company doing self-promotion (WP:SPAM). Twice deleted for expired WP:PROD, once deleted for copyright violation, I'd suggest that if the result of this discussion is a Delete, that this article be Protected from recreation. Valrith 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Airlines are generally notable. I looked for newspaper articles about the company, and added two under "References" in this article, which means that it now unambiguously satisfies WP:CORP. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The first of these 'articles' falls into the category of merely trivial coverage as defined by WP:CORP : "... articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". The second is inaccessible to me. Valrith 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the first article is about 200 words long and is non-trivial. [This] would be a trivial article. The second article is a bit longer, and is also therefore non-trivial. Newspaper or magazine articles which are not available online (or for which free registration is required) are just as valid as those that are available online free of charge. I wish someone had looked up these newspaper stories and added them to the article before the article was prodded. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • As well, please note that both newspaper stories are bylined (that is, they indicate the name of the journalist who wrote the story), which generally indicates that the newspaper story is non-trivial. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep
      • i agree. i have no idea why you are indicating any of your reasons for deletion.

Urban909

  • Delete I believe the articles amount to trivial coverage as defined at WP:CORP. They are not truly about the airline, they are about schedule expansions of adding particular flights. What we need to have a solid article is independent coverage about the airline, not about a particular flight. I suspect this may be an article that needs to be created on the Italian wikipedia and then translated here. GRBerry 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD:G11 (blatant advertising)

[edit] Info-Quest

Appears to be no more than a publicity puff for the company. Emeraude 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quran and science

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOV--it is an attempt to correlate parts of the Qur'ān with the current paradigm of scientific thought. Fails WP:OR as well. It is interesting, certainly, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it can be salvaged, I'm all for it--however, I think the idea of selectively correlating parts of a text (while ignoring those bits that don't correspond well) cannot adhere to NPOV. -- Merope Talk 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my mind regarding the article. I believe that, should it implement reliable sources and address both aspects of the issue (as Science and the Bible does), it will be an excellent and interesting contribution to the project. It will have to be developed beyond the collection of quotes it currently hosts, but I no longer believe it is a candidate for deletion. Keep. -- Merope Talk 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 :: The article Science and the Bible should also be deleted? Read the introduction of the article that I am creating where it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?? Secondly I am still expanding it and not yet finished with it. Any comments on its contents will be too early. Let me complete it and then you can delete it. Thats way you will also have more fun with your deletion. BTW I feel some people so biased that they "mark" the article with non-neutral/disputed tag (that says see "talk page") when I just named it and nothing significant was in it . I had seen the talk page it was also blanked at that time :). Now it is nominated for deletion when I am still expanding it. However, I love those people as they encourage me and push me for being better Muslim and do more research about my religion. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Science and the Bible examines both correspondences, errors and consistencies. It also contains citations from reliable sources indicating that people other than the author have done inquiry into the field. If this article were formatted in this way, I would not have nominated it. -- Merope Talk 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be much better than that. If it servive for few days. However you must kill it early (very first day). --- ابراهيم 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion discussions typically last five days, and you are encouraged to continue editing in that time. -- Merope Talk 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am a PhD student and have to work 12 hours a day. You do not set deadline for me. I decline to work under your deadlines. Go delete it and be happy. --- ابراهيم 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The five-day deadline is non-negotiable. I'm sure you're busy, as many other editors are, but the response of the deletion process is given after five days, no matter what. --Nehwyn 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. The article will need the same kinds of citations that Science and the Bible has. As it currently stands, there's no indication that this is anything but Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I might have lower standards than other contributors here, but the fact that there are now sources added (on the Talk page, which is a start towards incorporating them in the article) is good enough for me. Keep therefore, and with any luck it'll start to look better soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the thing are either from Quran or from corresponding wikipedia science article. Hence most of them are referenced, rest of them are commonly know fact. Now let see your claim is true this article is not referenced. Tell me there are many articles exist in wikipeda with a special tag saying "references/citations need". Why not delete all those dozens of articles? --- ابراهيم 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you've misinterpreted me. The citations in this article at the moment are from the Qur'an and that's perfectly ok, since we need the text there as it is. There are also explanations of the scientific processes involved. What the Science and the Bible article has as well as these is a collection of sources where scientists and theologians have examined the compatibility of the two things. This article (at the moment), doesn't. I'm not saying that such sources don't exist, I'm just saying that they're not here at the moment. Without them, it looks more like original research. For example, which "Scientists say that before the galaxies in the Universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of huge gaseous matter or clouds." Likewise, I was under the distinct impression that some planets orbit the sun in an elliptical manner rather than the "rounded course", so a citation would need to be provided here, and so on. In relation to the argument that there are other articles which don't cite sources, the fact that a series of articles of a certain type exist isn't a reason in favour of keeping any particular article of that type. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • About science I am copying most of the things from wikipedia other articles. BTW rounded does not mean perfext circle or ellipse. In rounded both are covered. It is just commonly known fact. I know because it is about Islam so I have to find references about commonly known fact. I also know that you cannot even wait for references for few hours or days. TELL ME that if "Science and the Bible" was in its current shape during very first few hours? Go and see its history. Oh I forget current article is about Islam not about Bible so it should be perfact from 1st minute.--- ابراهيم 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, please understand that no one is attacking you nor the Islamic faith. Secondly, I believe you are still mistaken as to BigHaz's meaning: it is not the science that needs citations, but the correlations between science and the Qur'ān. I could go through the Upanishads and correlate sections of it to scientific thought, but that would be original research. Unless you have evidence that people other than yourself have made these correllations, it fails one of WP's primary guidelines. If you read the Science and the Bible article, all the arguments presented have been published in scholarly works, not contributed by Wikipedia editors. I understand that you say it is a work in progress, but perhaps it should be moved to your personal sandbox until you've brought it up to Wikipedia's standards. -- Merope Talk 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
* There are many books written in that subject. However, it is not possible for me (being a human) to cite them all with one movement of my finger. You can search Amazon and other books site for them. How can I cite those books and give reference in just few hours. You are just like the person who visit factory and after seeing tire says "This thing will not work, distroy it". If person like you exist in the world we never have any cars. --- ابراهيم 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody's saying that you need to do this in a few hours. AfDs run for about 5 days, which is frequently more than enough time for someone to add sources like this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I want to see where this article goes, actually. Let's give it a fair chance. --Nehwyn 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As a further addition to my thoughts on the matter, I do have to note that there's quite too much original research in this at the moment. And the fact that it will hopefully get better in the future is not a valid argument: when an article is posted, it should be eligible from the moment it is posted, not at some undetermined time in the future. I'm not saying "exhaustive", just eligible. --Nehwyn 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an apology, a defense of Islam. Wikipedia however is an encyclopedia, a record of what people believe, it's not for inviting people to convert to Islam. Now if this article instead listed those arguments that have been used in Muslim apologetics, that would be fine. This article isn't built along those lines, though. Dr Zak 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article does not give any opinions. It tell what Quran (with refrence to Quran meaning) says and then what science says (with reference to corresponding wikipedia article). The article is not yet done. --- ابراهيم 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Can you please delete it. I will try to work on it at my user space and will post it back after making it much mature. I will try to give both sides view and everything will have reference. At the moment they have started an edit war and adding their own comments. For example -- Ant cannot speak "ARABIC" (just 100% their own comments - like talk page). I already have much less time to work on the article and cannot afford it at the moment. Can some guide me that how can this article be deleted? Danke schoen!--- ابراهيم 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Same as Nehwyn, I'd like to see where this goes. It has only been through about 5 hours of editing. Looking forward to a great article. Cheers! zephyr2k 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep With a simple google search I found at least a dozen references (which I have added to the article talk page) for the correlation between Quran and science. This article definately has value and I look forward to seeing it developed more. Ratherhaveaheart 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    •  : See I have to work on other things too and do not get lots of free time to work on wikipedia. In order to improve the article I want to do following two things. Firstly, I will ask some other people in wikipedia to contribute (as they are good in this subject). Secondly, I will issue books from library. However, it depends that when I will have free time again (may be after a week). Lastly, I think when more people will know about the article then it will improve significantly. Because few will add criticism and other will defend it with references at the end we will have a healthy article (that what is wikipedia about). This all CANNOT be done in 5 or 10 days under the hanging sword of article-deletion deadline. --- ابراهيم 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say, either nominate Science and the Bible for deletion, or get sources for this. Keep Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Although there are different views on what the Qur'an states about various scientific principles, this article will probably cover them in time. This AfD nomination was made much too soon. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As it stands now the article is an apology of Islam. It's a good thing that you invite other people to work on it, and the work already done is a good basis. However, you know (or by now you should know) what the rules are. There's nothing forbidding you from working on a preliminary acceptable version of the article outside Wikipedia, or in your own userspace. I'd be happy to help, but the article is original research (your own ellaboration) and I'm not familiar with any reference works that could be used in this case. For now, no vote, but I'm afraid the article cannot stand as it is now, as it violates policies that are at the core of Wikipedia. If it does get deleted, you still have the right to ask that a copy of the text be restored outside of article space for your own use, so you can eventually make it conformant to WP policies and re-create it.
Comment 2: The above observation by Danny Lilithborne is simply not a valid argument. "If you delete this, why don't you delete that" is possibly the single most posted opinion in AfD, but it never works, and it only messes up the process. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm very aware of that. However, I think it works in this case. Deleting an article that just needs citations and clean-up to be encyclopedic is not appropriate, and deleting this but leaving the Bible article conveys a clear double-standard. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There is a very clear difference between the two articles, though: one examines the relationship between science and scripture (both correllations and discrepencies), and one selectively interprets passages in scripture to show that they are in agreement with scientific thought. If we were drawing analogies, this would be similar to an article about Creationism that only listed verses that could be interpreted to agree with scientific finding. The fact that the creator has stated within this AFD that the article "claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically" further adds to the article's underlying POViness. -- Merope Talk 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment "I said "WHERE" it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?." It had a different meaning then what you have understand. --- ابراهيم 09:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment So put a POV tag on it. It's not like the creator owns the article. Danny Lilithborne 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep As it stands, this article needs a lot of work, however, in principle, I can't find a reason to object to it other than it will be difficult to do properly. However, it is not necessarily impossible to do so, and I'd prefer to wait at least a month, see if it gets anywhere close to the Bible article. Mister.Manticore 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Must DELETE POV and the original research. Better place on Islampedia.Opiner 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter is very interesting, and it need not be an apology of religion, as long as it shows divergences as well as consistencies. At present, the article only mentions consistencies (with the macroscopic exception that I added), so I do agree there is a big POV going on here, and quite a lot of original research too. --Nehwyn 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then its time to make it the STUB not to keep whats there waiting for source. Can I just write whatever propaganda I want, you say unsourced, but give him time? Keep article is fine but in a stub.Opiner 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: If such things are in Qur'an that can be related to science, that should be present in the encyclopedia. But it would be better if a few references can be added from some books. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No reason to delete --Irishpunktom\talk 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is a good proof for Infinite monkey theorem.--nids(♂) 09:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure but the monkey creating the garbage not the Shakespeare. This article is the propaganda of Islam pure and simple.Opiner 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In order to assume good faith we call it an apology, or non-neutral POV. That can be fixed, potentially. I am going to tag the article, so others can work on fixing it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To early for an afd, topic is encyclopedic, try doing a google search. Afd is not the place to address editorial issues.--Striver 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like almost everyone who show up here are Muslims asked by Ibrahimfaisal![30] So no way to delete ANY article because he just ask all his religion friends.Opiner 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • For the record, I'm an atheist, and if this article isn't up to good standards in a couple of months, I'll nominate it for deletion myself. But you'd better stop messing up the discussion. You haven't contributed at all to this or to the article. Keep, by the way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a Bahá'í who actually is not too fond of Islam. But I am far less fond of religious bias and definitely not fond of random accusations. Might want to keep your suspicions to yourself next time. Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In the last few AfD's I have participated in this same argument is put forward "the other side is just having his friends come and help him". First I think there should be more faith in the WP Community. Lots of people contribute to these debates, many people who just want to help improve WP and have no connection what so ever to the article in question. Furthermore it is an ad hoc attack to focus on the personalities of the contributors rather than the substance of the debate. I personally peruse the AfD's and participate at on anything that catches my eye. When generalities are made about the contributors of a debate that do not apply to me at all, I feel a bit insulted. Ratherhaveaheart 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: I only asked them to contribute in the article and not asked them to vote here. I even continue asking same people to contributing in the article even after their vote here. Only three people vote here after I ask them to contribute (you can find their ratio from total votes). I even ask Pablo-flores to contribute. I never know him before here; he is not my old friend. Furthermore, it makes no sense to ask people to vote because it will inform those people too who will vote against you. I am more intelligent than that. --- ابراهيم 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ibrahimfaisal's source would appear to be this deeply misleading speech by Zakir Naik, which he posted to several user talk pages prior to the creation of the article, but is uncited in the article. I can't say how Mr. Naik feels about this, but it looks like plagiarism if not also a copyright violation. A check at the creators' contribution history shows that several of the votes above were indeed solicited from editors who had no prior involvement with the article, but which Ibrahimfaisal had reason to believe would be favorable to the notion advanced in the article. It is not only uncited, but essentially false in its exegesis (and, in a few cases, translation) of the passages in question.Observation Post 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Observation Post (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This book does not agree with you. --Striver 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*Comment I had only posted Zakir Naik video on one person page and it was many days before creating article. Can you point the other pages where I have posted it or confess that you are not telling truth? Most the translations of Quran are from famous three translators and are well-cited. --- ابراهيم 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. i find it rather strange that an editor would participate on this AfD with only his third edit, the two prior to it being to remove redlinks from his/her user and talk page. ITAQALLAH 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Duly noted. I've added the {{spa}} tag. -- Merope Talk 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — but fix. All of the empty sub-sections should be removed until something is ready to go in.
There is a problem with analyzing scripture in that the meaning is not always clear. It could really use sources, especially when it is drawing a conclusion between a particular scientific fact and an particular reading of the Quran.
This is not an apologia. Pointing out correlations between scripture and science in not by definition apologetic. Such correlations do not validate the veracity of either side.
The obverse is not true. Religious beliefs that run counter to science are nothing more than superstition. Scientific conclusions about theological points represent nothing more than the hubris of scientists making the a priori assumption that the entirety of experience must fit into a materialistic model. MARussellPESE 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep retaining the option of revisiting the article in 30 days to see if there is sufficient improvement to justify its remaining. Badbilltucker 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic of "Quran and science" has been addressed by many Muslim academics. Books on the topic are carried in most Islamic book stores. As long as they are used as sources, and those sources are properly cited, the article is legitimate and notable. ImKidding 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)This user's fourth edit
  • Delete. Appalling pseudo-science, either based on WP:OR or sourced contravening WP:RS. It makes both the concept of Islamic sciences (that did have glorious times ...1000 years ago) and WP a laughing stock. Al-Kindi or Alhazen would shudder in disgust confronted with this demeaning obscurantism. --tickle me 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As it stands today it deviates considerably from the approach taken by the Science_and_the_Bible article. There are a number of related articles WRT the bible e.g, Bible_scientific_foreknowledge and Biblical_inerrancy both of which should be templates for any similar examination of Islamic doctrine (or rather Islamic apologetics). I've looked at the article and I'm really worried it'll just keep poping up as an AfD if the edits taking place stay in the same style. Though I may seem anti- my first approach to arguments are through reason. It should also be renamed to Science and the Quran to be consistent with the approach taken with the Bible. Islamics must realise; the world have been-there-done-that with respect to infallible-word-of-god-and-science (TM). There is nothing new being argued here. Ttiotsw 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nowaday many researches are directed toward that field in which correlation between science and holy books take place so we should give the place for such an article that may be an interesting one and it like the approach taken by Science_and_the_Bible article but any theory in this article should be strenghted by a reference .Delengar 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move This article should be moved to a book page The Bible, The Qur'an and Science as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I might mention that the arguments listed on the page as so preposterous as to hardly be worth refuting, for example the line where it says the "heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" allegedly refering to the Big Bang. Do we need to even mention that that Earth did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.--CltFn 04:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Thomas

Profile of candidate to US congress election Nehwyn 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable congressional candidate. We don't need an article for every person who runs for public office. What has this person done besides launch futile congressional campaigns? --NMChico24 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless they have something else to recommend them, such candidates tend to be non-notable until they win a seat. Fails the political section of WP:BIO --Mnemeson 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with above, Non-notable congressional candidate. Article also contains unsourced conspiratorial speculation. — Linnwood 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If he wins this year, then he can have an article. TJ Spyke 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and slight propaganda.--Húsönd 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete There are hundreds of congressional candidates every year that get wikipedia pages. Steve Kagen, who is running for the Eight congressional district in WI, is running for congress for the first time and he gets an article. Jeff Thomas has run several times. The standards for non-notable are too subjective. User Gwjones2 8:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Above account is not 'new' per se, however has only edited to two articles - Russ Feingold (four times, months ago), and Jeff Thomas (nearly sole contributor). Thanks for making us aware of another article that needs deletion - WP:BIO has a section on politicians, and people merely running for office don't qualify --Mnemeson 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I just added several citations and did not have any before, because I did not know how to do it. I reworded the article to make it more balanced but the editing will not appear for some reason. If you edit the article you can see the changes. If you feel that more editing is necessary, please feel free to do so.
  • Comment I fixed the formatting so the full version of the article can be seen and debated (you had your / on the wrong side of "ref").--Isotope23 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, recreate if he (hopefully) wins.-- danntm T C 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, good point... this could absolutely be recreated if he wins the election he is running in; he'd meet WP:BIO at that point.--Isotope23 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove the speculation. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Thomas in a brief search of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website. The article has the potential for expansion. Minus the speculation, the article is verifiable and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Articles about candidates for national office with verifiable information about them shouldn't be deleted, period (if part of the article is not verifiable, delete that part)--Zantastik talk 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sonny Corinthos. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 11:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sonny Corinthos

This article is a duplicate of an already existing article for Sonny Corinthos.--Bookworm857158367 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celia Walden

{{{Notability not asserted}}} Igbogirl 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. See references in article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |
    • Comment Still not notable. Novel has not yet been published. Subject does not appear to have won any awards and is not particularly notable. Igbogirl 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)contribs) 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Truthbringer. I cleaned up article so it sounds less promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Prominent journalist on the UKs biggest paper- as such, very notable. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep Notable. Stubbleboy 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dax (Star Trek) --- Deville (Talk) 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dax (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

Completing incomplete nomination by User:206.107.220.149. Had been prodded by User:12.75.0.155 with reason "insignificant non-character in movie". Merge or redirect to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. TimBentley (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge or Redirect per nom. TJ Spyke 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect as above. Was only on screen for about a minute, and is only notable for being a) the punch line of a joke and b) having the same name as a later, totally unrelated character, spawning some discussion over whether the two might be related. An alternate merge, therefore might be with the article on the DS9 character for this reason. 23skidoo 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect per nom. feydey 10:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was should-have-been-speedy keep, due to lack of nominator/rationale. — CharlotteWebb 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of radio stations in New Zealand

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Legolost. Keep, see no reason to delete. It's got a couple of red links, so it's not a copy of the category. TimBentley (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but expand with frequencies, formats, etc., like the similar North American lists. Kirjtc2 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand per Kitjtc2. There are literally hundreds of "List of radio station in [insert country/state/territory here]" articles on Wikipedia; there's no reason to randomly pick off New Zealand's. --Aaron 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Limegreen 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per above, particularly the reason given by Aaron. 23skidoo 04:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Younger

Completing incomplete nomination by User:DeleteF10. I don't know what the reason for deletion might be. TimBentley (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, just barely notable, one award (among a group), businesses not yet notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn —Khoikhoi 04:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 move to "List of..." form. — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National symbols of Pakistan

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Siddiqui. We have List of official United States national symbols and National symbols of Canada, so I don't know why this should be deleted. Merging would be preferable to deletion regardless. TimBentley (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as List of national symbols of Pakistan. These are becoming a more common type of article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep BUT remove the wrong entries. I noted in the talk page that the article is full of total nonsense, such as "National reptile", "National amphibian", "national vegetable" etc. These are not correct, according to my interactions with Pakistani wikipedians. Apparently,an anon IP 82.x.x.x from UK had been adding these misinformation there. --Ragib 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malformed and pointless nomination by an anonymous contributor. Please re-list with an explanation if you believe this article should be deleted. RFerreira 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sainik School Kazhakootam

Completing incomplete nomination by User:61.17.22.93. Keep, seems as notable as other schools. TimBentley (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore

Completing incomplete nomination by User:219.90.96.141 (probably User:Tanksingh).

  • Keep, seems as notable as other schools. TimBentley (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it seems like a non-notable school. TJ Spyke 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not one of the best schools in India according to this site. Ok, so it's not the best reference, but I really did try to find something on the web that will support a keep and couldn't find anything. zephyr2k 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto's references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a well-constructed article for a secondary school that provides thorough details of the school and its history, complete with verifiable references. Alansohn 05:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem notable. Cedars 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Mergeto Roman Catholic Diocese of Indore which needs some content. Too much info about a non-notable school. A hundred non-notable facts, well referenced, are still of interest only to those attending the school.Edison 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good article with plenty of information about a large school. bbx 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That is not an argument, that is a buzzword. JoshuaZ 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete almost a full delete but not quite. School is generally not-notable but the size does push slightly in the direction of notability. JoshuaZ 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn as well as User:Silensor/Schools. No valid reason for deletion has been presented, making this a borderline speedy keep. Silensor 08:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although this article reads a little poorly (do we need five subheadings in the emblem section?) it doesn't have any problems for which deletion would be a good solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, neither of the arguments for deletion are appropriate. The first (nom) is a completely invalid reason, the second so vague as to not be useful. If someone can come up with a valid and even slightly detailed reason for deletion in the future, send this back up in a few weeks. --- Deville (Talk) 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charges.com.br

Only popular in Brazil. Ragnarok Addict 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. That's not a valid reason for deleting the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Pan Dan 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For heaven's sakes this is one of the most popular web sites of Brazil. Some of the charges made into television. I agree the article isn't very well done, but I feel offended for the nomination for deletion, and it makes me wonder if nomination for deletion should only be allowed for adimns. algumacoisaqq 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Being "popular" isn't a reason to be in an encyclopedia. If you can show me why this is notable per our guidelines (i.e. passes WP:WEB), then I will be happy to change my mind about whether this article should be kept. Pan Dan 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, personaly, I believe that being popular IS a good reason, but whatever, it's just my opinion. Acording to [31] tought, the site was choosen as "site of the year", as is visited by 120.000 people every day. Too bad it's in portuguese, as it is pretty much all material about it (not much I found, but not much I researched). What I can report you is that at every Sunday, at the sports program of TV Globo (by far the largest one in Brazil), there is one charge featured every week. The author also made some animations for the Big Brother (Brazil) show. The site was reviewed in Veja magazine, one of the biggest in the country. The author appeared in the television show of Jô Soares, a similar show in Brazil to David Letterman's or Jay Lenno's. Hell, in Brazil, the site is probably more visited then Wikipedia (and probably a LOT more then the Portuguese Wikipedia). But links and stuff? Sorry, I don't have. All the information in the article is easily accessible from the site - you just have to speak portuguese. Well, the informations on the article. The ones I posted here can't go for the article because I don't have links to prove it. They are true, tought. algumacoisaqq 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Also: I know the article lacks quality and such, and it's hard for people from outside to know about it's importance just from looking at it. But it could have being asked, I don't know. This isn't the first, or the second (well, it's the third) article for deletion that I see complaining about web based stuff, when it just shouldn't.
        • Given that there are sources in Portuguese, perhaps this would be a good article to write in the Portuguese Wikipedia? To be in the English Wikipedia there have to be (I suppose) sources in English, or translated into English. Pan Dan 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It allready exists in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Look, if you think the article lacks the quality to be on wikipedia, then just delete it, because it has been a long time ago since I wrote it and to be honest I have no interest in researching english fonts just to prove my point. I'm just saying that I know about the wikipedia rules - I used to be a regular contributor in Portuguese wikipedia - and there is no reason to delete this article at all. The thing is that I'm not interested to continue to maintain that particular article, so if you think it should be deleted for the lack of sources, fine by me (oh well, not really fine, I'll be pissed off, but whatever, at least I won't complain). The thing is that, as far as I know, all the info in the article is just to bloody obvious to be quoted from sources (yeah, I know, I need to read the "no original resource" rule again... but I just think that rule is flawed). Besides, I believe English wikipedia has the most resources about this subject in the English language. algumacoisaqq 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I just read again these rules (verificability, no original research). It looks like they are a lot more important now then they used to be. I didn't found any mention about language, tought. I still believe all info can be found inside the site (the site being a primary source, is it possible?), it's just that it is in Portuguese. Oh well, I'll see if anyone from pt.wikipedia is interested in fixing it. algumacoisaqq 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laurens "Raider Navy" NJROTC Program

One specific course in one high school is not notable or encyclopedic. Probably speedy deletion, but I'll err on the side of caution and say: delete. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. I'd have tagged it with {{db-club}}. -- Hawaiian717 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. It falls under nocontent/context as well. I be deleting it. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HFBoards

Recreated after being speedily deleted under G11, so technically contested and in need of AfD debate. But really, can't we just WP:SNOW this spam?? Leuko 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's possible to speedy this again db-repost perhaps? zephyr2k 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, no, db-repost only applies if an article is reposted after an AfD debate decides to delete it. A previous speedy delete does not count. Leuko 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect then. Sheesh, you mean this has to go through the long process? zephyr2k 23:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the one who prodded the original article. This website fails the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Additionally, the author of the original article spammed WP:HOCKEY's sources section with links to the website. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept, and moved to knot density. DS 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knots per sq cm

I don't see how this article about something that's not very important can be expanded any further. Joiz. A. Shmo 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Being generous and Googling knots+"square cm"+carpet, I get about 400 results (85 unique), which at least shows the concept exists, but doesn't give much reason for there to be a separate article on this rather than a mention at carpet (when I first saw the article title, I thought this was going to be about a weird unit of some kind of velocity flux). Confusing Manifestation 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename — Suggest renaming this to "Knot density" and covering the topic in general. There are several different measures of knot density in use, including knots per square inch, decimeter, meter, &c., so one article that covers them all would be good. Alternatively it can be merged with carpet. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Odd. It reads like its original research personally. Where's the sources for what is considered high/mid/low quality carpet? Suggest Merge to rug making. But if someone doing the merger can't find any sources for this stuff (which, again, sounds like original research), might as well just redirect and leave a note on rug making's talk page about the content about the fate of the content that wasn't sourced at all. Kevin_b_er 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per "Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect". Daniel.Bryant 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mdirs

Nothing links here Palfrey 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that redirects should be listed on WP:RfD and not WP:AfD.--TBCΦtalk? 23:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. This isn't acceptable at WP:RfD either: "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect." Michael Kinyon 08:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modified Directory Structure

Non notable, fails google test Palfrey 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per likely WP:OR. The page was created by User:Markhobley. Mark Hobley seems to have been the originator of this particular directory structure [32]. Regarding notability, I have been unable to find any indication that MDIRS was ever used by anyone but Hobley. Michael Kinyon 09:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocoristics for Dutch names

This article is apparent WP:OR with no potential references found via search -- zero hits for the title search terms. The creator defends the inclusion of this article on the basis that Hypocoristics for Spanish names exists and suggests that removal would exhibit anti-Dutch bias. It's not my intent to be anti-Dutch, but I'm pro-project-policy. Erechtheus 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete but I remain pro-Dutch ;-). Non-encyclopedic; this is not a name directory. I'd say delete for Hypocoristics for Spanish names as well for the same reason, but as it has not been nominated for deletion I'll leave it at that. Agent 86 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I initially thought I'd nominate both as well, but they're not on equal footing. The Spanish article might not be appropriate for the encyclopedia, but it at least has sourcing. I certainly wouldn't object to an AfD on it, but I think it would need to be separate for the sourcing reason. Erechtheus 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This article is not a "directory" of any kind. If anything, it is a glossary. 'mikka (t) 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of Dutch pet names, perhaps? --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. The topic is encyclopedic, see below. `'mikka (t) 02:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "pet names" is ambiguous: think about Snoopy, Fido, Garfield, and you see my point. Carlossuarez46 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. The title is descriptive rather than some specific term, and absence of google search is meaningless. Lack of references is not big deal. We are not talking about something controversial here. I am quite sure there are quite a few Dutch namebooks in existence. Gogling for "dutch names" gives quite a few thoussands of google hits. I have found the article interesting: it shows a pet name formation distinct from, say English, and it may well be made in a solid article; examples exist, see eg [33] (not exactly on topic; just to show encyclopedic potential, and interesting, too; quoting: "For someone just starting Dutch research, a Dutch name is like a foreign word."). `'mikka (t) 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK here is even a more solid one: "DUTCH NAMING CONVENTIONS". So I guess the nomination was done in great haste without making reasonable check. `'mikka (t) 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Before you go around making accusations about the lack of a reasonable check, please explain to us how the personal webpages you have located pass WP:RS. Erechtheus 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • they pass WP:CommonSense. Once again, this is not some conspiracy theory or political rumors you may expoect fraud or fantasy. I am taking back accusations and apologize, since I see the nomination is based on genuine personal understanding of wikipedia. Still, I have to disagree with you, colleague, sorry.`'mikka (t) 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Quite a few Dutch namebooks in existence". You must be kidding. I was inundated by books every time my wife was pregnant. Well, many English, French and Russian names are now frequent and current in the Dutch language area, and some of these names are subject to "shortening" that would sound very strange in the original language. Dominique is shortened to Niek (also the shortened form of Nikolass) when the child is a boy, to Dom or Dommi when it is a girl. Tanja becomes Tan - in Belgium at least. Evelyn in all forms and pronunciations is shortened to Evy or Evie. "Kat" (yes, it also mean cat) can stand for many female names, and is rather awkward when you have a daughter called Kathelijn AND a daughter called Katja (like I have). While in the Netherlands only the female short forms are used for official registration at town hall (Cor or Neel are officially Conelis but Neeltje is registered), in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium the short forms are also registered for boys. So, this article can actually be expanded a "little".--Pan Gerwazy 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment to comment: "you must be kidding": no I am not. "quite a few" in English language is a politically correct way to say "a whole shitload of truck of these bloody books about baby names" `'mikka (t) 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment to comment to comment: Sorry, Mikka, but really, I was only kidding when I wrote "you must be kidding". Actually, I thought it was a nice pun on the word "kid". Does not sound so funny anymore when I read it all over now, of course. :<) --Pan Gerwazy 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. As per mikka (t) --Pan Gerwazy 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mikka. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave zelenski

Delete. This person is non-notable -- according to IMDB, he has had only one minor film appearance (so far) as "Teenage Passenger" in the 2005 movie, Reversal of Fortune. That role appears 25th on IMDB's list of credits for this movie. Google generates only 9 unique hits, all unrelated, for "David Zelenski", and 14 unique hits for "Dave Zelenski", some related, some un-related. Hopefully for his sake, he'll go on to have a great career and look back and laugh at us for our folly, but for now I just don't think this article is justified. (Note: I previously nominated this article for deletion using the PROD process). --A. B. 23:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Traffas

Seems to be non-notable. Google can't find any independent reviews required by WP:MUSIC, as well as only one self-produced album. Contested speedy/recreated. Leuko 23:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Most of the article is completely unverifiable, leaving not much. MySpace is that way -> -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No albums, doesn't appear to have toured outside of Kansas. Nope. - Richfife 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sale Baptist Church

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

This is a non-notable individual Church location. The 56 unique search hits do nothing to augment notability. Deprodded. Erechtheus 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Basically a fill-in-the-blanks overview of a non-notable church. - Richfife 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable. - Longhair\talk 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no sources cited and the article does not indicate notability. No references found in an Australia New Zealand database. A Google News Archive similarly fails to find reference to this church. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No references, no assertion of notability. No prejudice against creation if it becomes notable. Andjam 05:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just had an edit war with an IP who insists in removing the afd notice. MER-C 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, it seems that parties are quite motivated to remove the notice and/or blank this AfD page. Two have been issued blocks so far. Erechtheus 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: The removal of the AfD notice persisted from multiple ips, so I've semi-protected the article for now. - Longhair\talk 08:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What constitutes a notable church? It should be more than the building... Google may not tell you all that much either. I vote to Keep until criteria for church notability are established. (JROBBO 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
    • Reply It's not an official policy, but I try to approach churches as if they were elementary schools (they have about the same density) and apply the schools policy to them. That's just me, though. - Richfife 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Lankiveil 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit. While the current revision only contains information about the current activities of the church it is my understanding that it is significantly notable in the history of the town. Jasonb 12:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I question the consistency of deleting this article when by the same criteria (claims of notability, references), the following articles from the same category should be deleted and they have been allowed to remain: Crossway Baptist Church, Collins Street Baptist Church, Diamond Valley Baptist Church. Jasonb 12:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Wikipedia is extremely large (well over a million articles). Hundreds, if not thousands, of new articles are added every day. The editors are not always able to spot inappropriate articles in a timely manner, but we're working as fast as we can. We'll look at the articles you pointed out with an eye towards deletion as soon as possible. - Richfife 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note I put Crossway and Diamond Valley up for deletion, but not Collins (because of its association with a notable minister). - Richfife 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article failes WP:V. If the church is notable then there should be sources out there that interested editors can base their articles on. If such sources don't exist, then it's a case of original research. Mako 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there are sources that are not online such as the Sale Historical Society which will point out the article's historical notability. I am happy to look at these sources (and cite them appropriately) in an attempt to bring the article up to standard. I would also appreciate pointers in doing so since I'm new :-) Malcol13 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Malcol13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Malcol13 is not a "single purpose account", he's just new. Leave him alone, how would you feel? give the guy a break, he's got a throat infection at the moment too. Nath85 05:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would also like to add that: The reason I hadn't previously created an account is because I did not see a need. All the articles I had viewed were generally complete, or not being challenged. Such a great sense of community here I must say, you target new users and assume things about them. Just because I found an article of interest to me, signed up so I could help out, you say i have created a "single purpose account", that's not very nice. I am actually a little disappointed by the wiki community, or part of it at least. If I see a need to help edit another article in the future, then I will, but as yet I do not see that need. I hope you can accept my proposal... Malcol13 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to take this opportunity to say hi to my mum. Hi Mum! Nath85 05:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Article should stay, but more about the church's history should be included 220.238.233.199 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wooltonian

This is a non-notable nickname for the residents of a dorm. The 34 unique search hits do nothing to augment notability. Erechtheus 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Esteban F. (contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably not worth merging to university article. - Richfife 00:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparent Neologism.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't merge. --David Edgar 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Oberon

No sign of notability given. Prod removed twice. Google garners 20 hits for "Julia Oberon" [34]. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nope, not notable. - Richfife 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete up-and-coming model until she ups and comes. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - her most 'notable' thing thus far seems to be that she's 'close friends' with one person who has their own article... --Mnemeson 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Vanity --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete She is UP and Coming! I made this article to pay homage to someone who is up and coming. She was on the cover of Spanish Vogue too! That's a big deal! She's signed with several MAJOR modeling agencies and she's on their websites! You guys need to calm down! Also, she is related to one of the world's most classically famous actresses, Merle Oberon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.160.135 (talk • contribs).
    • Reply Here's the thing: Wikipedia is absolutely, positively, 100%, do not pass go, do not collect $200 NOT for "up and coming" anything. If you're not notable right now, then the article needs to wait until you are. Wikipedia is not for raising someone's profile. It's for documenting people that already have a high profile. And Julia Oberon does not. - Richfife 04:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Addition Be it good or ill, I tracked down a link to a scan of the cover of the August 2004 Vogue. Is this her:[35] I have no idea. Does it mean she meet notability requirements? Probably not. The picture doesn't mention a name (as far as I can tell) and is more about the clothes and makeup than the model. - Richfife 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply No that is not her, but the fact that she was on the cover of a very prominent magazine, regardless of content -IS- important. She is up and coming in the USA, she is well known in many other countries as well. She has a huge fan base in Japan. Also, the fact that she is distantly related to the famous actress Merle Oberon should be enough to qualify her as notable. People are interested in these types of things, even though you don't seem to think so. Why would anyone use Wikipedia as an outlet to boost their notority? This isn't exactly People Magazine. And please, don't refer to *me* as if I was her. That's pretty presumptious and inncorrect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.160.135 (talk • contribs).
      • Reply A couple of things. 1) The Merle Oberon connection is meaningless. I'm the second cousin once removed of the inspiration for the title character of Rain Main, the grand nephew of the junior Senator from Utah and the son of the head of the math department of University of Utah (these three facts are all true). Being someone's relative isn't meaningful. Even if she was, Merle Oberon isn't all that famous. Sorry. 2) If she was well known, there would be google chatter about her. The internet loves models. No fansites, nothing. Google is worldwide, but there are no matches for her name in any Japanese website. Wikipedia entries have to verifiable and notable. Julia Oberon is not. Why would someone use Wikipedia to boost their notability? The same reason they write their name on walls. - Richfife 07:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Then just delete it and get it over with. The nerds are obviously the majority here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.160.135 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_October_2_c2ce.html"