Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 6

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist (bar)

Contested prod, no evidence of any encyclopedic value. --Peta 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pending evidence of notability (searching for Zeitgeist bar on Google doesn't give anything that immediately seems useful). Yomangani^talk 00:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence presented regarding notability, i.e., that this isn't "just another bar." WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Kevin 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom; no evidence that it actually exists. Mr Stephen 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Kinu and User:Mr Stephen. JIP | Talk 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but get me the phone number of the young lady in the approximate centre of the picture, partially obscured by the blonde. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete entirely unnotable. --Alex (Talk) 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Absolutely non essential. Jcam 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've been there! It's nice. I'm not a reliable source. Damn. - Richfife 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The one place my SF friends made sure to haul my Boston butt to (it definitely exists). Be sure and stop by if you're ever in the Bay Area, it's really awesome. However, unfortunately not article material. Dina 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. The 90s are over. --Aaron 21:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what possible significance does this article manifest? none. Wikipediarules2221 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I seem to recall some murder reported at the club; don't know whether makes it notable, but if it were a school <don't go there>; but couldn't find the google to it, so I must be misremembering. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure they have very good beer tonight, and I wish I was there, but they are NN WVhybrid 00:43, 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 Merge and redirect. There is no plausible place to merge this, however, so I am going to simply make it a redirect. AdamBiswanger1 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outfake

It looks like nonsense to me. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite - ICE Magazine writeup on Beatles outfakes and bootlegs and a book on music history which delves into the Beatles bootlegs and "outfakes" as well as other notable points in music history around the 60's, 70's and 80's. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the Beatles article, trivial without the context.--Peta 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge 50/50 split on search engine results - 50% reference to Wiki, the other 50% reference to the Beatles. Seems most appropriate merging with the Beatles as above. QuiteUnusual 06:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Outfakes seem to be solely related to The Beatles. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Peta, Kitch. --Dhartung | Talk 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge. Not even important enough for a sentence in the Beatles article. Recury 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Peta. Wikipediarules2221 23:35, 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-- keep AdamBiswanger1 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Blair, Minister

User:Tony164 has added this article and several other ministers to Wikipedia recently. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem very important, with no real achievements other than "having been a minister." I think this falls under WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a geneological record. -Elmer Clark 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages on ministers for the same reason:

• James S Johnstone, Minister
• Robert S Calderwood, Minister -Elmer Clark 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robertson, Minister below. -Elmer Clark 00:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep as I have checked WP:NOT The only criteria that might possibly apply is the one forbidding formless collections of information. These all relate to the the sometimes tempestuous history of a significant parish in Scotland (meaning the people and events are well in the mainstream of Scottish history and not replicated elsewhere). In that, they give exemplary life to broader treatments elsewhere. John Robertson and James Meek wrote siginificant historical documents - still consulted today. Others to be added have had similar significant impact on the history of Scotland in turbulent times. The others you mention (Blair, Houston, Calderwood) are I admit there to fill in the historical record, but this is not formless or meaningless. I have not yet tracked down the criteria for "notability" and will have to take your advice on this, but I would have thought that the sharing of this sort of well established historical knowledge is just what Wikipedia does best. I appreciate not everyone is interested in history, especially local history, but loads are. It's not all pub quiz material! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony164 (talk • contribs).
• Keep and cleanup as these appear to be referenced. Or maybe a merge somewhere might be an interesting thought. JYolkowski // talk 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Why is he notable? Could this be a hoax? Arbusto 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete alll None of them seem to be notable. TJ Spyke 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom and WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Robert Blair (minister) and do that for all the other nominated articles (or failing that, Redirect/merge) - Certainly wouldn't delete all. Not entirely sure how notable this minister is but I certainly think the general subject matter is of historical and encyclopedic interest. The page is linked to from Cambuslang clergy, and it looks like the user may be trying to eliminate redlinks one by one? Work seems to have started only a couple of weeks ago, and although it's stalled since then, I'd like to give the editor (User:Tony164) more time to expand it. If nothing comes of that, I'd merge the content back into the main Cambuslang clergy page. --DeLarge 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - random Scottish Vicars are not notable. --Mnemeson 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete None of it meets WP:BIO, as far as I can see it lists 7 lines telling about his life, and then one line saying he translated a bible. Not notable. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and perhaps move as per DeLarge): The guy was not a random minister, but an author and translator and theologian. Read please the article to the end before voting :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I did read the articles, and researched them. Robert S Calderwood has his notability asserted as publishing. Googling (which is almost certainly not the best way to research this, but the only simple way) the Patriotism coronation address for which he was apparently known turns up one single result - the WP article. James S Johnstone's big thing was introducing gas lighting to his Church, and riding around "in a large black cloak". I personally don't feel that hymn translation is a notable activity. Bible translation potentially is, but Robert Blair wasn't doing it alone, and I doubt it had a very large effect on the number of people who could access it. At best, give him a line in an article about translation of the bible. Ergo, my vote. --Mnemeson 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Robert Blair, and move per DeLarge. Being a part of the team that translated the Bible into Scottish Gaelic strikes me as a significant enough achievement, and per WP:BIAS translating the Bible into a small minority language is no less significant than translating it into English or French. Weak delete on the other two unless a further case for their notability is made out. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Blair per Smerdis of Tlon, Delete Johnstone & Calderwood. The Cambuslang clergy page is also suspect; this is just a history of ministers in basically one parish, not a history of Christianity in Scotland. I could see individual churches in Cambuslang being notable, individual clergy being notable, but I don't see the global view in having a local church history. --Dhartung | Talk 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless it is shown that role in translation of the Bible into Gaelic was big. Otherwise, it appears his contribution was a collaboration. Jcam 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Eusebeus 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Jcam; the only notable thing about him is his bible translation; without some showing that he had some major role in that, he's just another non-notable priest. Carlossuarez46 00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, also seen all the time in AFD. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. Edison 20:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. To English speakers Blair's work might not seem particularly important, but it sounds like he made some important contributions to Gaelic literature. He held some fairly important posts and wrote for a newspaper. I wouldn't say that any one thing is particularly notable but overall it seems enough to be worth keeping. RickReinckens 08:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This article's nomination for deletion should be a lesson in writing good articles. The article simply presents Robert Blair using a series of bland general statements about his life that fail to convey the importance of his contribution to society. The article needs to be rewritten to highlight Blair's contributions (his editorial and translation work), to explain the importance of his work, and to de-emphasize the bland biographical information (such as the exact dates of when he got married, when he moved to Edinburgh, etc.). Otherwise, it is going to look like the biography of an unimportant minister. George J. Bendo 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Mnemeson. --Buridan 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO criteria. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete James S Johnstone, Minister. Non-notable. Not encyclopedic. (Also, middle initial needs a period.) RickReinckens 08:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all articles are properly sourced and thus verifiable. WP:Notability alone is NOT a criterium for deletion. Wikipedia is also NOT a paper encyclopedia. The articles are encyclopedic and verifiable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am extremely confused by this and a couple similar comments at the AfD for the other minister I nominated. Since when is the rule "if it verifiably exists, it's in??" A huge proportion of the deletions at AfD are non-notable bands, vanity pages, etc - these people/bands do verifiably exist, but they are so obscure that there's no real benefit to having them. Do you support keeping such articles? Would you support keeping an article about me, a humble and insignificant student, were I to create and source it? I realize WP:NOTABILITY is not official policy, but the idea of having no notability standards whatsoever is pretty bewildering... -Elmer Clark 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply: First of all, there is a big difference between an article about an obscure band with its only source being a Myspace account and an article about minister which is sourced from a reputable book about ministers. In the first case the source is created by the band itself, in the second case a secondary source already considered the minister important enough to include him in the book. Secondly, I am no big fan of the whole notability concept (which, I keep saying, is not official policy), mainly because it introduces a big bias towards American topics. I've seen people nominate very well-known asian artists for example, and even vigorously defend their AfD when confronted with evidence. All because this person was not "notable" (meaning they never heard of it). So, im my book, notability alone is a too slippery slope to be the only reason for deletion, ever. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Robert Blair, Minister. Ministers were more important further back in history than they are today. Gaelic translation activities may be sufficiently noteworthy to meet WP:BIO, and in my eyes, for now are adequate reasons to keep. Delete James S. Johnstone, Minister and Robert S Calderwood, Minister - no assertion of encyclopedic notability. GRBerry 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Blair for his literary contributions (but cleanup the article); deletethe other two for failing to meet WP:BIO. Sandstein 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, as failing WP:BIO. If we could verify the idea that he was a major factor in the Bible translation, I might be inclined to reconsider. - Tewfik^Talk 17:27, 10 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 and protect from recreation. Nufy8 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notd aftermath

This is what happens when you don't watch your deleted pages. This was previously deleted in one of my most emphatic nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notd aftermath. The reasons why this page was recreated is given at Talk:Notd aftermath, but in addition to the article, this is a multiple nomination. The further articles are nominated:

• List of NOTD Aftermath items
• NOTD Aftermath history
• NOTD Aftermath weapons
• NOTD Aftermath Zulus

NOTD is not a notable mod. A google search for "NOTD Aftermath" gives 100 unique links. The only assertion of notability is that it made the "spotlight map" on http://battle.net , note that spotlight maps occur once a week. - Hahnchen 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Peta 00:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Arbusto 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, again. Opabinia regalis 01:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Resolute 02:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Hello32020 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and protect from recreation per nom.--Húsönd 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all above; protect as appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Frag --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom -Markeer 12:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect the main article (G4 - recreation of deleted material). Ask the re-creator to take his beef to deletion review. Delete the rest of the NN fancruft. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all above.UberCryxic 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Milton Humason 03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above; non-notable. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:20, 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 Keep AdamBiswanger1 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damn Small Linux

Prod tag removed without comment, no evidence is provided that this linux distribution is any more notable than any other.--Peta 00:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep common enough, though the article needs cleanup; not a great set of statistics, but DistroWatch ranks it above Slackware and Debian in lookups over the past year. Opabinia regalis 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Damn Small Linux is perhaps the most well-known Linux distro for business-card CD's and USB thumbdrives. I see it as notable. However the article could certainly do with a clean up and a trim to make it more focused. But I don't think slapping a 'prod' template on the article and now listing it here on AfD is the proper way to motivate people to fix the article. Even if it does result in a cleanup, there are other ways to achieve that result. This is just a waste of time. Imroy 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong speedy keep. Damn small linux is the most popular micro linux distro, with a rank of 7 on distrowatch (which means, to all of you non-linux-geeks, that it's the seventh most popular linux distro). It's more popular than Slackware, Gentoo, FreeBSD, CentOS, and Debian itself. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 04:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment while I agree this should be kept, a rank of 7 on DistroWatch doesn't make the 7th most popular distribution; just the 7th most popular distro page on their site. They're not measuring actual usage. Opabinia regalis 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep So-called Portable software is a growing phenomenon as small flash drives increase in capacity and more and more consumer electronics (video game consoles) evolve towards becoming full-fledged desktop computers capable of running alternate OSes. Invariably the content can be expanded as popularity (and enquiries) increase in frequency. Currently there is no portable software article, btw. --Neo 09:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "any more notable than any other" would make it notable enough. Only, I'd rename the article to DSLinux personally. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: We already have a DSLinux article. They don't appear to be the same distro at all. --Aaron 21:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Even if DSLinux didn't already exist, that name is simply wrong. The distro is called Damn Small Linux, and so should the article. Using an uncommon (and ambiguous) shortening of the name is inappropriate. --Imroy 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, quite notable as one of the premiere compact linux distributions. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Damn Small Linux is a rather widely used disto. It is just as deserving of having its own page as say Gentoo. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Probably the most notable non-commercialized Linux distro there is. I do agree that the article could use a little more notability evidence. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep keep keep heqs 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems plenty N to me. --Aaron 21:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Damn Small is certainly a notable enough distro to warrent keeping. It's one of the few distros created solely for use on really old computers. Infact, it was the first Linux distro I ever used. BWF89 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Without this page people looking for a small linux Distro may have trouble finding this one. Also It's good for people on dial up.--Dr.-B 08:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.I found it useful. SGC
• Keep PureLegend 10:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep among the best known of small Linux distributions. Also causes a lot of confusion. ("Yes, I'm using DSL?" "So you use DSL? Er...") --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it is one of the more notable compact Linux distros. --Kuroki Mio 2006 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable linux distro and article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Vic sinclair 05:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the comments above, this is a WP:SNOW candidate. Yamaguchi先生 23:22, 9 October 2006

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

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

The result was keep. AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Robertson, Minister

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blair, Minister above. I think that this guy should be deleted under the same critera, but I feel his is a little less clear-cut, so I've listed it seperately. -Elmer Clark 00:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable (and somewhat better than the other ones). JYolkowski // talk 00:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to John Robertson (minister). T REX_speak 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, move per Dino puppy, and list at John Robertson. JDoorjam Talk 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per large carnivorous dinosaur --DeLarge 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Might I ask which of his achievements you keep voters feel is significant enough to warrant his inclusion, especially as opposed to the other nominated ministers? -Elmer Clark 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that the subject of an article be significant. This article meets our content policies very well (with three references as opposed to just one for the others). JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, excuse me? I am aware that WP:Notability is not official policy, but you say that subjects of articles don't have to be significant at all? I could create a referenced article about myself, would you favor keeping it? -Elmer Clark 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually yes, as long as those were third party reliable sources I (and the rules) would have no problem with a page about your self. AmitDeshwar 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, also seen all the time in AFD. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches.Edison 20:27, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona Jewelers Association

No verified evidence of notability or encyclopedic value. --Peta 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Slightly spammy too. MER-C 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. No apparent notability outside the context of its parent organization, which may not satisfy inclusion guidelines either. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NOT and WP:ORG per nom. Jpe|ob 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:26, 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. The article as written is junk, but from personal knowledge I can tell you that the term is a real pejorative, quite widespread, and could easily merit an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arsim, The Ars

No evidence to show the reality or notability of the term. --Peta 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable slang term, if not a fake. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to the talk page it is a real term, but this article is wrongly titled and is unverifiable original research (and I'm not sure it isn't just an excuse to write "arses"). Yomangani^talk 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, also possible attack page. JIP | Talk 11:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Yomangani. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and WP:OR --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wish we could find an applicable speedy criterion. Cool3 15:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even if a real term, the article is commentary and lacking any sources. Agree that "arses" might be the reasoning for this. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pedia-I 18:18, 10 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. -- Steel 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo hunt and peck

Seems to fail WP:NEO. No sources are given as to this phrase's widespread use. Crystallina 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hunt and peck typing. It does seem to be used occasionally (about 2 google hits on forums), so is a possible search term. Yomangani^talk 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redicect and merge a maximum of one sentance to Hunt and peck typing per Yomangani. I think we can sefely lose the last sentange about Tony Recchia "creating and perfecting" it. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Two hits on Google forums isn't enough to even keep this around as a redir. Delete per nom. JDoorjam Talk 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appending "turbo" to something doesn't necessarily warrant a separate article -- especially when it doesn't appear to be a common term. Kevin 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm really surprised no one's made a "turbo delete" joke yet. JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:28, 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. Prodego ^talk 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Baptist College

Delete per no notability. An unaccredited "college" that offers "degrees" in subjects like "Secretarial Studies". I can't find a figure on how many people attended, but I assume its small since the church, Longview Baptist Temple that operates it claims that the church has 3,000 members. Moreover, looking at their website the Bob Gray, "founder" of the college, is constantly referred to as "Dr." without mentioning his doctorate is honorary and from Hyles Anderson College (an unaccredited institution.) This is telling of some problems of WP:V on its website. I get 3,000 yahoo hits for "Texas Baptist College" which included this article and places not related to this subject. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. Arbusto 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. It is a "ministry of the Longview Baptist Temple", also listed for deletion today. Either delete or merge with that article if it isn't deleted. QuiteUnusual 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeletePer nom. --The Way 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a significant institution. Gazpacho 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, though I honestly could not care less about this school one way or the other, I would point out that though it is unaccredited it still has had students, at the same time it has controversy and respect as well. The fact is some people may wonder about this school that want an unbiased opinion, I would never have known it existed until I saw it on wikipedia, plain and simple that is one of the great things about wikipedia, there are millions of things listed in standard encyclopedias I may never read but at the same time there may be somebody who needs to, by chance, no something, I do not find it notable, but it may be useful to someone else. The school's site is biased, wikipedia, is supposed to be an unbiased rescource for those searching, also there are many schools on here that are unaccredited, though I do think that this article should be kept I do not feel that the church article should be I feel that if anything the church article should be a section of the College article. --MJHankel 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding your claim that it "has students", does it? Please provided WP:V of how many students it has. If it has a lot that might establish notability. Your claim that basically everything should be kept (even though you may not read it) isn't a reason for inclusion, and in fact goes against wikipedia policy. --Arbusto 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Frankly I do not know but there has been a book written about it, from one of its alumni, beyond that I do not know, Like I said I never had heard of it before but it just seems as though there are other Unaccredited colleges listed and it just did not seem that there was any real reason to not list this one. I am just trying to expand and keep info on all subjects, frankly either way it does not much matter to me personally. I am just trying to make an appeal for this article. --MJHankel 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Please give a reason for inclusion based on wikipedia policy. Your claim that everything should be included is absurd. Arbusto 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment As I said there was a book written about it called The Texas Baptist Crucible[1] so in that sense it is notable other than that I do not care plain and simple I honestly do not like in anyway Independent Baptist Fundamentalists look under controversies on Hyles Anderson College, William Andy Beith was my principal, I was at that school when it all went down,.. so basically this is not a biased argument I am simply stating that it is somewhat notable for its controversy which I am positive is more than this especially sense the founder/chancellor of this school "Bob Gray" was also the founder of another highly controversial school in florida Trinity Baptist College, either way I fill that if for no other reason than controversy this article may be important.--MJHankel 05:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. Arbusto 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't know that that is a confusion. The comments on Amazon and on various blogs and forum posts (yes, I know, not WP:V — just listen a sec) seem to indicate that the book discusses both, possibly because they are so intertwined. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe one day when this can pass WP:V and there is more than forum posts this article can be recreated. If the "book" is so important to the article then why not include it? Seems strange to cite something as a reason for keeping an article without entering it into the article. Arbusto 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete: Those suggesting this outfit is trivial clearly don't live in East Texas. This is a sizeable (if a bit odd) organization that is one of the major religious and social institutions in East Texas. I don't know the numbers, but they fill busload after busload of congregants every Sunday from as far away as Dallas (130 miles). No, it isn't world-famous; but anyone who lives in Longview or any of the surrounding towns is well aware of it, has likely had dealings with it in some way, and understands that it is quite influential in the region. Its accreditation or lack thereof really doesn't have much to do with it's overall influence. This is a substantial, locally influential, controversial institution - if that doesn't make it worthy of an entry, then I just don't understand the criteria very well I guess.Ritwingr 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is Ritwingr's first ever edit. Arbusto 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At first, I had trouble understanding the problem, too, but let me see if I can explain it. All of this controversy is potentially VERY notable ... but we don't have sufficiently solid sources to demonstrate that controversy yet. (The Spurgeon book doesn't yet count because none of us seem to be able to address whether it talks about TBC or only about the church.) If you look at the Hyles-Anderson College article mentioned above, you see that newspapers have written about problems there (just one example). If you live in East Texas, you may be able to find verifiable sources that those of us using online searches can't find; for example, have the Longview News-Journal or the Tyler Morning Telegraph published stories? I also wonder whether any specifically Baptist papers or papers of other Baptist colleges have written about it; I know that when the International Churches of Christ were getting started, a paper called The Christian Chronicle was writing about the movement long before major newspapers and TV stations or networks started covering the topic. Consider whether you or someone you know has access to such sources, and if so, post here any information you find. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry wikipedia does not keep articles based on "potentially notable" articles. Arbusto 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless the nominator can explain how having an entire book published about the folleys of this school somehow make it "not notable". I see several things notable about this school, non-accreditation != non-notability. Silensor 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please name those several things that make it notable; I see nothing in the article. The book is about the CHURCH, and its self-pusblished! Regarding the self-published book: church!=school. Also accreditation is required in Texas to give degrees.[2] The article currently states they give degrees. That is a serious WP:V issue. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Silensor is right... just because it isnt an accredited school doesnt mean it cant be notable... It could be quite infamous for many reasons... This school in particular has a book published about all of its mistakes. That means the information is verifiable, and therefore should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes it notable? How many "students" attend? Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Silensor and Alkivar. bbx 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a school inclusionist voter. Reasons for keeping (per others) are addressed above. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The closing admin should see this. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

• Comment: Could we have a WP:V independent from the "college" that there is a classroom? A student body? Regular staff? That this "college" is authorized to give degrees? I ask because Texas requires accreditation to award degrees.[3]--Arbusto 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep any school that is the subject of a lurid exposé of its "cult-like environment" is notable in my book. Besides, what other institution of higher learning offers degree programs in "Church Maintenance and Mechanics". The Buddhists only offer bike maintenance at their schools. Given the notability of teh school, the nominator's unsupported concerns are irrelevant. Alansohn 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, do you have any citations for this "lurid exposé" of which you speak? Also, delete per nom. Vectro 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The SINGLE "book" (by a former member of the church) is about the CHURCH. The publisher of this 2006 book is PublishAmerica, which is a self-publishing company.[4] According to that Washington Post article, "PublishAmerica does use POD technology -- saving manufacturing and warehousing costs by not producing a book until a consumer actually places an order." The church was not notable enough for wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple and was DELETED. The only source that is being cited to make it notable is self-published. Self-published sources are not allowed per WP:RS. Hence the article should be deleted. Arbusto 06:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A student number would be important here. Seeing that the staff number is 20, and that a bunch of those are probably non-teaching, that means there's probably only 10-15 instructors at this place, and thus the student number must be tiny. -newkai t-c 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. People voting keep on any and every school are getting a bit tiring, and this is a good example of what is so annoying about that behaviour. If an article doesn't pass the standards set by our policies (and seems unable to do so even after researching it), it should go. Fram 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per lack of WP:V from reliable sources. It appears the main sourcing being offered for keeping this is the vanity published book about the church which is not sufficient. No clear case for notability has been made here and nobody has offered any sort of reliable sourcing for even the basic existance of this school.--Isotope23 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation of verification of student numbers etc. is found Cynical 22:08, 13 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 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longview Baptist Temple

Unnotable church. Article claims it has 3,000 in attendence, but this is not sourced. Fails notability and doesn't even assert any. Arbusto 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't decided on this one either way. Academics have apparently documented the congregation size on a list of megachurches. There is a book about the church, albeit a self-published one. One commentator describes the place as notorious, suggesting it's notable at least within some particular community. Other people apparently agree. However, I haven't seen a lot of WP:RS-friendly material to make an article out of, so I've mainly limited myself to removing the occasional vandalism that is presumably from the LBT people themselves. I think I'm leaning toward a keep, but I'm open to persuasion or new evidence. William Pietri 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding your claims:

1) Yes, the church is listed among 1,300 other US churches. It claims attendance is 3,000 meaning it is as big as a high school on Sundays. 2) That book is published by a pastor at the church. It does NOT prove notability because any pastor can write about his church, self publish it, and list it at amazon.com 3) Yes, there are blogs that mention it. I don't see any that meet WP:V, which can establish notability?

I could be wrong, but how do these prove notability for inclusion? Arbusto 02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's one of many megachurches; I don't know what the threshhold is, but I thought I'd mention it. The book is actually by a pastor at a different church; he was a former LBT member and his book is an expose. I know that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the amount of discussion about it suggests to me that it may be notable. Naturally, all facts in the article should be verifiable, and blogs don't count for that. As I said, I'm not sure which way to go on this, but I thought I'd post what I turned up i my research. William Pietri 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability. --The Way 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Eusebeus 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, on the above evidence it doesn't seem notable. EdJohnston 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that overstates the case. There are very few churches that have entire critical books written about them. This may not be notable (I haven't made up my mind yet) but it's pretty far from cruft. William Pietri 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• mergeI beleive that, no, this church is not notable in and of itself but it is notable as the founding control of Texas Baptist College, though that page is up for discussion as well if you will read what I said on that discussion, The college is needed on wikipedia if only to provide an unbiased opinion of the school, providing both the controversial and the positives. --MJHankel 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of individual churches. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. We reinvent the wheel arguing over each individual church as to what the global criteria should be. Size definitely should not be the only criterion, any more than it is for schools. Edison 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that MJHankel (talk • contribs)'s reason for keeping Texas Baptist College is because be wants every article kept no matter what sources of WP:V issues. See his comments on that afd. Arbusto 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment as should also be noted, I said all topics not all things Colleges Are much more notable than churches, Encyclopedias are supposed to contain a vast knowledge of the world, I have not and will never claim tat all articles should be kept, Had the college not have controversy related to it I would not find it notable either. --MJHankel 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. (Read the above.)Arbusto 06:29, 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. The assertion that this is a "useful" list doesn't really stand up to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Steel 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ...for Dummies books

This is a huge unsourced list of books that have the title "...for Dummies". This list does not meet is what WP:ISNOT. This is a copied list stolen from the publisher's website, and all it will ever be is an out date second list.

This was nominated in March and reached no consensus. Many votes included "keep and clean up," its been a half year and the list is not different.

• Delete and redirect to ...for Dummies. Arbusto 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What kind of source do you need for the existence of a book published by a major publisher, other than the title? Gazpacho 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The publisher, the ISBN number, the year it was published would make the books more WP:V, but it would still just be a list. And lists of indiscriminate info is what WP:ISNOT. Are they written by one publisher? If so the article doesn't claim that. Arbusto 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary list which doesn't even link to articles about any of the books. Perhaps a category would be appropriate, if one does not already exist. --NMChico24 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep/rewrite/clean up this could be an article if there were editors to add reliable references, otherwise some of the things in there could be made up.--Andeh 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's now sourced, so the unsourced complaint is no longer relevant. Fg2 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to this link as a "source". I don't get it? I see ads to a podcast and information on backpacking. Care to make your source more specific for this list? Arbusto 00:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It contains links to the categories. See the links on the left side. It is the web site operated by the publisher for the series of books. Fg2 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then this wiki article is a copy and paste from that website. For example, compare Dummies: Computing all databases Titles to wikipedia dummies database titles. What point does this article serve if it is the exact same as the publisher's list, only the publisher's list is more accurately maintained. Arbusto 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Two of grounds for deletion are incorrect. It's certainly verifiable, given that you can check the titles against the publisher's catalog, which is certainly reliable enough. Not to mention the Library of Congress, Amazon, and whatever else is available to the book ordering trade. So we have only WP:ISNOT, particularly 1.7.3 to argue about. And that's where I can say as a list, this has some potential use, if any of the titles warrant further elucidation, even a whole article. I'd suggest making this part of the main article, but then we'd have problems with that growing unmmanageable. Mister.Manticore 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since the Publisher's catalog might remove books once they're out of print, I'm not inclined to rely on it. Still, the ...for Dummies article could use a bit more about the categories of books. Mister.Manticore 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article could use more info. In other words, let it grow. Fg2 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft which verges on WP:SPAM. The series is notable - individual titles aren't, and a list of titles in the series is not encyclopedic Bwithh 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pretty much Mister.Manticore said it all. The article needs some work and ive volunteered to put in that work but the article kept getting deleted through a redirect. If the redirect war stops and the article is maintained it will subsequently be cleaned up. A very useful list, however, and should be kept.Bagginator 01:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Nothing has stopped anyone in the last six months since the first afd from improving it. 2) How do you plan to "improve it"? That is, what can be done to improve it? Arbusto 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or split them into individual articles. Useful list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable series of books, we have articles for really off-beat episodes of long-cancelled t.v. shows that were rarely seen outside their own country; these books are literally everywhere. Carlossuarez46 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I advocated before. This is a mirror of a list which is available online from an authoritative source. The list at the publishers is complete, accurate and up to date - our list is not guaranteed to be so as new books are published all the time. Previous and present keep arguments often rested on the fact that ...for Dummies books are notable; that is not questioned, but we already have an article on ...for Dummies books, this is just a list of them at an unspecified date. There are precisely zero bluelinks to individual books, making this list considerably less useful than the one on the publisher's website, which has a short synopsis for each book. This list violates WP:NOT as both a directory and an indiscriminate collection of information (why this particular publisher's catalogue?). This is simply a copy and paste of the listing on the publisher's website on an unstated date; "do not add copies of primary sources". Guy 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's a duplicate of a list on the publisher's website, all it will ever be is an out-of-date version of that list. A link provides better information to readers. Sockatume 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a book catalogue. The Land 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the previous AfD. This is one of the true publishing success stories of the last 20 years. We obviously need the list if we want to be a serious reference work, that goes beyond video games characters, obscure porn stars or irrelevant diploma mills. Nominator cites wp:not without referring to a specific clause- not really surprising since none apply. Concern over lack of sources may be valid, although nothing prevents the nom from adding sources. In fact, few of our hundreds of book lists have sources, essentially because the publication of the book proves its existence. Examples include List of cookbooks, List of political memoirs, or List of fictional books, etc. Ongoing discussion on talk page showed interest in improving the list, something this nom ignored when making this nomination. --JJay 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing a list of political memoirs and fictional books? Those lists contain notable authors and political figures created by wikipedia. This list is stolen from one publishers page without asserting any significance. Arbusto 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those lists are incomplete, lack clear inclusion standards and have no references. This list has the potential to be complete and has clear inclusion standards. Otherwise, you are certainly entitled to fail to see the significance of the Dummies series, but the significance is clearly implied, not the least because we have an article on the series. --JJay 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... most lists on wikipedia are incomplete. What's your point? --Arbusto 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The point was that this list, unlike those, has fewer problems with the completeness of the list. If it's missing a title or two, that is easily correctable, and more likely because a new title was just released than any actual problem. And there's no question that the ...for Dummies series is itself notable. Mister.Manticore 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The series is notable that's why it has an article: ...for Dummies. This is a list taken from the publishers website of titles. Arbusto 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

and since people may have an interest in knowing whether a particular book in the series has been published, well, I see the purpose of this list. Sorry, but the summaries in the main article are incomplete, and making them exhaustively complete would just be excessively detailed. Thus the seperate list. Mister.Manticore 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: JJay is committing bad faith to make a WP:POINT on my afds. He voted keep here, but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill he wrote [5]"However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." Clearly, if he really believes copy and pasting a list is a copy-vio and not wiki-worthy he would vote delete here. This is user is gaming the system and following around my afds. Note I have had trouble with this user since April. Arbusto 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That's an intersting comment and an interesting use of taking my words out of context from an unrelated article. I'll let slide the series of absurd and non-sensical accusations. But try to stick to the merits of this list. It shouldn't need reminding, but that is why we are here. --JJay 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No kidding you'll "let it slide" because its true. Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation? If yes, change your comment on this afd. If no, change your comments on the institute afd. Arbusto 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is true is that you seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational debate concerning the merits of this article. My vote stands in keeping with the previous AfD. However, if you have copyvioed material here I would have no objection to its removal. See WP:Copyvio. --JJay 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to engaged in a debate ? You have reverted my comments and questions with a minor mark.[6]

Removed my comments again.[7] --Arbusto 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer this: Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation as you said here[8]? Arbusto 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please argue the idea, not the person. See also WP:AGF Mister.Manticore 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the obvious. JJay has consistency done this to my edits since April; see his talk page or another ongoing afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). Arbusto 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have done nothing to "your edits", nor does anything you are talking about have anything to do with this article. You nominated this list for deletion and I voted keep, just like I did in March [9]. Try to make a case for deleting this without resorting to innuendo, insinuation, personal attacks and unrelated accusations. --JJay 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You deny changing my edits? What about this[10]? On this very page with you keep vote you managed to insult and undermine this afd and those who voted delete ("something this nom ignored when making this nomination") and contradicted yourself(you mentioned "unnotable" porn stars-- something you vote to keep[11]). Why don't you make a case for keeping an article by actually doing work to improve it? When was the last time you actually editted an article? Arbusto 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I generally remove trolling from my user page, as is my right (and you were warned not to post belligerent messages there). The rest of your comments have nothing to do with this list. Once again, you seem merely interested in making accusations and personal attacks, rather than convincing keep voters that this should be deleted. --JJay 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original data. Dr Zak 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Praytell, how is this original data? Yes, measuring the temperature outside your window is original data/research, but this is merely an index of books. It's about as original as looking in the paper to see what the election results are... Mister.Manticore 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a directory (as opposed to a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia), called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say delete as it has not been improved during the six-month time span. "keep and clean up", yeah right. Punkmorten 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Relisting for more opinions. Arbusto 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' Wikipedia is not a directory. TJ Spyke 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' as nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable series of books. Clay4president 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what the ...for Dummies page is for. This is nothing more than a list of all the books. It's just listcruft. TJ Spyke 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. This is of barely any use to anyone, and if someone actually wanted to know it, they could just go to the official site. What's more, it's borderline copyvio. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft, unencyclopedic. The list is outdated and redundant, even though there are sources, it has zero encycloepdic value. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or delete the entire Wikipedia database. To say an article should be deleted as its somewhere else on the web is ridiculous, as practically the only way Wiki verifies articles is if you can find alternative sources that back up that information on the web! IE if you can get the exact same information from another website. Jcuk 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  This is not only a duplicate of other content, but it's also outside Wikipedia's remit. It's merely a directory, and no effort has been made or, indeed, can be made to make this a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - If the publisher's list only included current in-print books and we listed out-of-print books, AND we included ISBN references and listed authors for each individual title, AND we had articles on individual books then I might be inclined to change my mind. But right now it's just copyvio listcruft, and according to the article it's over six months out of date. It seems like the logical thing would be to delete this and just add the external link to the ...for Dummies page. --DeLarge 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Considering the sheer number of ...for Dummies books, I'd in fact split it further. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On a personal note, I am apalled by the lack of civility in this AfD discussion. But I agree with JJay; the clause of WP:NOT needs to be identified if it is to apply as evidence for supporting deletion. And while he has contributed subsequently to the downfall of civility in this discussion, I don't agree that JJay's original Keep vote insulted anybody. His points were all rational regardless of anybody's judgement on their applicability. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps merge with ...for Dummies or make a category, but only if the books have articles themselves. --Alex (Talk) 14:21, 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 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polyemmory

Protologism - no Google hits at all, no verification offered. PROD was removed, so nominating here. Calair 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (nominator vote). Googling for 'polyemory' (one 'm') produces seven hits, most or all of them misspellings of polyamory. Note also the first version of the page, which made specific and untrue claims about e.g. UK law, which does not speak well for accuracy of the rest of it. --Calair 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mdwh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to polygamy, then Protect. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you redirect? It is not in use, not a probable misspelling or search term... Keeping it as a redirect gives it way too much weight. Delete, allright, but I don't get the rest of your choice. Fram 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, term has no proven usage and is an unlikely typo for a redirect. -- nae'blis 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. -- Merope ^Talk 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Delete and Redirect to polyamory, which is probably what this is supposed to be. --Mysmartmouth 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR Made from thin air WVhybrid 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not a valid alternate spelling of polyamory or polygamy. Eluchil404 07:45, 11 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 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shanica Knowles (character)

Redundant, already an article: Shanica Knowles bibliomaniac15 01:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect Danny Lilithborne 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete actual article seems to be about an actress (who already has an article) not a character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:34, 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 per CSD G11 -- Samir धर्म 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc LaSalle (http://www.marclasalle.com)

Does not meet criteria in WP:PORNBIO -Nv8200p talk 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete clear vanity. Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD-G11. Single purpose account dedicated to pushing that website. Resolute 02:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD G11. Super-blatant vanity.-- danntm ^T _C 02:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD G11 Vannity. Hello32020 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete but worth a quick read for some hilarious attempts to claim notability. Actual quotes: "Marc is a versa-bottom in every sense of the word!" and "I could not believe my ears when I learned that he was also a major fisting talent!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 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 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retatta

Delete, WP:NOT a cookbook for recipes that fail WP:RS; seems to be a vanity page of some sort. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete clear vanity. Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'- Vanity page. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom El Cid 04:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:35, 6 October 2006
• Do Not Delete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.7.15 (talk • contribs).
  • Note The above anonymous user blanked this page and vandalized the article in question. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 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 10:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federation Without Television

This group is not-notable (GHits return WP/mirrors and a few directory listings). ju66l3r 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's not much information out there, and what little there is points to this being a rather small group. There are a surprisingly large number of Google hits, but very little of substance. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:35, 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 concensus - Yomangani^talk 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insider Pages

Does not establish notability per WP:CORP. Was deleted via prod on July 26; recreation counts as contested prod, so nominating for regular AfD. --Alan Au 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - The linked-to NY Times article (only just) establishes notability as per WP:CORP. The fact that it was only a single article (i.e. not multiple sources) is mitigated by the fact that it's the NYT, which is pretty high profile as far as media coverage goes. Also, the chief "rival" in that article, Angie's List, has a page on WP as well. Neither company's article is overly self-aggrandising either, which counts in their favour. --DeLarge 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• My keep is no longer weak now that User:Uncle G has cited a second source (see below). Notability now established beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned. --DeLarge 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DeLarge --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do this C:NET News article and this C:NET News article, both by Stefanie Olsen, help? Uncle G 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a startup content aggregator that managed to finagle NYT coverage and reference on CNET. That does not mean we should suspend WP:CORP; as far as the importance of sources go, whilst I am in general agreement, I feel that a mention in the NYT does not automatically confer notability - indeed, it should refelct notability, which in this case is lacking. Eusebeus 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Nom and Eusubeus, and because it's full-blown spam. Article history shows it was created by an SPA who created the article, inserted links to it on articles about his competition, and walked away. Doesn't meet WP:CORP at all, IMHO. --Aaron 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep Other reviewers have found additional articles since I first entered a comment. So, according to the letter of item #1 of WP:CORP (multiple non-trivial mentions in the press), we should be keeping it. The article itself seems quite boring, however. When I look at the Angie's list article I see more about the actual impact that the web site has had, and the reactions of the users. The Insider Pages article says, 'This is a company active in local search, and it has X thousand listings'. Not too enlightening. EdJohnston 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:Corp. As well as the New York Times and CNet, a Google News Archive search shows coverage by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes as well as other sources. [12]

Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:Corp. Englishrose 13:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:Corp, read the conditions!! --MaNeMeBasat 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep by even the strictest interpretation of WP:Corp (see criterion #1). A cursory search of the web turns up multiple articles from CNet News, Business Journal, and the New York Times, of which this company is the direct subject. --FortyHertz 15:15, 11 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 defaulting to keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delinquency among boys without mothers

Original Research maybe? --FlareNUKE 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete boys without mothers? I guess these delinquents sprang forth fully formed from the sea. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. I suspect they were right behind Athena but nobody noticed them, leading to feelings of inadequacy that, in turn, caused their delinquency. JDoorjam Talk 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing vote per discussion below. JDoorjam Talk 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. JIP | Talk 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This seems almost exactly the opposite of OR to me. The article gives a timeline of various scholarly studies with what seems to me to be a neutral voice, and gives multiple references at the bottom. I would say the individual subsections should certainly be footnoted point by point, but otherwise this article seems to be an overview of other people's work, not original work by the article author. Isn't that exactly what wikipedia asks for? -Markeer 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete Complete re-write and shorten to extract pertinant information and add to John Bowlby. Always wary of anything that starts Research suggests and Studies show as OR. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Merge and delete" violates the GFDL. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite (perhaps even merge). The problem itself is encyclopedic and the article cites its sources.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Bowlby, or else Delete. The article contains info on the research by Bowlby, a test done of the research of Bowlby, and a completely unrelated test (having nothing to do with delinquency!). So for the largest part this is an OR rendition of the reseach of Bowlby. Fram 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Possibly OR, but it does not read like an article, but more like an essay of ideas. --Alex (Talk) 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the form of this article is not completely encyclopedic, but the article itself is interesting, it has a neutral tone, it is well referenced, and it pulls together stuff from many different places. If someone came forward who had a good plan for refactoring, I wouldn't mind if this article disappeared and was merged into some more orderly article, but as it stands, it's worthwhile. EdJohnston 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• KeepClearly notable and not OR. Research on this topic dating from Bowlby's post-WWII study of childhood separation and subsequent psuchological development has been in psych textbooks for decades. TDelinquency is a major issue in today's urban areas. It can benefit from judicious editing.Edison 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, requiring cleanup or Merge and redirect to Bowlby. JubalHarshaw 14:21, 11 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 - Yomangani^talk 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axure Software Solutions

Contested prob. Non-notable company. Artw 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Scott5114↗ 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm concerned about potential ostriching, as the company is relatively well-known among developers and project manager-types who have a use for RP Pro. I'd almost go as far as suggesting that it's as notable as Adobe Photoshop was to graphic designers in its earlier iterations before the advents of consumer digital photography and abundant bandwidth. Kevin 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:OSTRICH talks about reading the relevant notability criteria and performing searches to find supporting documentation for rationales. So where are the results of your search to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied? All that you have given us is a bare assertion that you, personally, think that this company is notable (and compared it to a software product) with no sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP (1) could arguably be satisfied by either of the following links: [13], [14]. A simple Google search on "axure" nets 58,000 hits. It certainly isn't Microsoft-scale, but in all fairness, the nom hasn't provided any sort of rationale beyond their assertion that they, personally, think that this company is not notable. Kevin 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Doing exactly the same as the nominator at the same time as criticising the nominator, is bad form. Now to the sources, which is what we should be looking for and looking at. Now we're getting somewhere. They actually discuss the product, not the company. There isn't anything in either that says anything about the company itself, apart from that it is the company that makes the tool. The first would certainly go some way towards satisfying WP:SOFTWARE for an article on Axure RP. What we need for an article on the company is something that actually discusses the company. Uncle G 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to believe there's a difference between devil's advocacy and "bad form", but in any case, I can see where you're coming from. In further searching, it doesn't seem that Axure is notable in and of itself, but I would contend that the RP Pro product is. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Adobe Photoshop makes pictures: something the average layman can understand and take an interest in. This has something to do with software development, and as such the description of their flagship product's intended uses is vague and sketchy: a full solution for the application design process and included features to manage marketing requirements, diagram sitemaps and logic, design interfaces, generate prototypes, and generate specifications. This will always be a rather obscure offering, and the article doesn't make a good case for notability othewise. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All things being equal, "Photoshop makes pictures" is akin to "Visio and Axure RP make flowcharts". I don't think what a layperson understands is necessarily sufficient criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but strip the article of the marketing mumbo-jumbo. Pronto. (I'm tagging.) --Dhartung | Talk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as corporate WP:SPAM under new CSD policy and stricter attitude towards corporate articles. Article created by single purpose user account which has also spammed links to this article across other articles. No claim of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to Axure RP, per discussion between Uncle G and I. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is too vague and content-free to be worth hanging on to, even if notability could be shown. The article seems unlikely to improve beyond what we have now. Drawing flow diagrams doesn't sound like a difficult task; what more do they do? EdJohnston 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above stated reasons. Brimba 20:58, 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 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpets

Article (and potentially website) fails to assert notability. See WP:WEB for information on notability requirements for the web. In it's current form I cannot see how the article is encyclopedic or notable and it should probably be deleted MidgleyDJ 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. That its owners strive to raise awareness of animal care (endangered species, etc.) sounds potentially notable, but it needs to be verified with reliable sources, right?

Additional comments:

• Google search = 32,700
• Alexa rank = 80,100

--Stratadrake 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing in first twenty ghits that makes it really notable. MER-C 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above Atrian 00:49, 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. Punkmorten 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wierd (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn befunge/brainfuck clone. —Ruud 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is quite unique and is not a clone of the above ---AM088 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I concur, it is not a clone and is an interesting interpretation and implementation of a minimalist programming language. This could be applicable to embedded systems or programmable integrated circuits (PIC) which have extremely limited (relative) memory storage capacity --Neo 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Esoteric to the point of uselessness, and ultimately non-notable. It's not useful for PIC programming, as there is no hardware that implements it. The instruction encoding scheme is unusual, but that's about it - the instruction set is functionally equivalent to that seen in Brainfuck-family languages. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It'd pain me to see this one go, a little bit, because I found the article quite interesting... but remember that being interesting doesn't mean it's notable. Duke it out! Dekimasu 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see how this language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's interesting (and proof that the people who write programming languages really are just trying to confuse me) but I don't see anything that even claims notability. It exists, yeah, but is anyone using it? Has anyone written about it? It doesn't appear so. Recury 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a really interesting language, but at Dekimasu said, interesting != notable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Curiosity != encyclopedia notable. Not to mention that employing visual appearance to help with SW development isn't the newest idea. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a really well-written article it would be worth keeping. The language itself doesn't seem notable enough. EdJohnston 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. Gazpacho 23:53, 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 - since even the nomination subtly suggests a merge. Discussion whether to merge or maintain it as its own article can take place on talk page. Yomangani^talk 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthem (The Wildhearts song)

Per WP:MUSIC/SONG does not deserve its own article -Nv8200p talk 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:MUSIC/SONG recommends merging short song articles into other articles rather than deleting them. In this case the most appropriate merge location would be Endless Nameless, the article on the album on which the song is included. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Spineback I have expanded this article to include details of the single release and have added the Wildhearts template and an infobox.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep as a released single. No need to merge this, to do so would screw up the discography chain. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 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. Punkmorten 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whenever

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke language, more or less; no complete interpreters appear to exist (the one on the author's page is incomplete!) and no references turned up on a search besides the author's site and Wikipedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof. Dekimasu 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Zetawoof. If it's never been implemented, it's certainly non-notable. JIP | Talk 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems that this is a language definition that is intended to be funny. People with a short attention span, like the readers of an encyclopedia, , are unlikely to make sense of it in the time available. If it's not notable, and it's not interesting, then I think we should vote to delete. EdJohnston 22:31, 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. Punkmorten 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whirl

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Another joke programming language whose primary purpose is to annoy the programmer. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I fail to see how this language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh, please. Not notable, not even serious. EdJohnston 22:33, 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 Speedy deleted as a vanity/neologism/nonsense article. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cling (hand gesture)

Original research about a non-notable local-interest-only neologism DMacks 02:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a neologism. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice per nom and WP:NFT.--Húsönd 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page El Cid 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:VANITY, WP:NFT... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Switzer

Academic, only claim to nobability provided is that his classes are good at trivial pursuit. --Peta 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty weak claim to fame. Certainly doesn't seem to put him over WP:PROFTEST. (Is an "Adjunct Assistant Professor" what I think it is, a non-tenure-track temporary faculty member?) -- Fan-1967 03:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio (almost speediable). JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does anybody read WP:BIO before creating articles? --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Triviaa 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the article made a stronger claim to notability, it might be worth considering this carefully. EdJohnston 22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Malpertuis 23:17, 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ainscough

Delete, per WP:NOT. --Peta 02:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Hello32020 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but with significant reservations. The article should be deleted because there are no references whatsoever. But I'm rather curious what you think this article is that Wikipedia is "not." There's nothing prohibiting articles on family histories, provided their subject is notable, verifiable, and the articles have citations. I'm also concerned that Hello32020 seems to simply be machine-gun-voting "Delete per nom" down the page, in at least one instance voting twice in the same AfD. That Hello32020 voted to delete per the nominator here, when the nominator basically didn't say anything, is somewhat alarming. JDoorjam Talk 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't speak for Petaholmes, but given that the article discusses the branches of a particular family with the surname Ainscough, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database seems to be the most likely to me. That policy is aimed more at preventing "Joe Smith, born 1685, died 1714, son of [[Fred Smith]] and father of [[Jim Smithson]]. Married [[Mary Baker]] in 1711." articles, though. Uncle G 10:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A very short article like this one, even if it sounded like genealogy, might be worth keeping if we could believe it was true. I see no verifiability here, and no attempt whatever at documentation of the claims made. EdJohnston 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Mrbowtie 13:14, 10 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QDB.us

Domain name, in addition to other problems discussed on the talk page the article provides no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, nor does it appear to be a quotes database. Don't believe this is against a Wiki policy, but it also contains racist material (e.g., Offensive Material) QuiteUnusual 08:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a quotes database to me...or at least I browsed a bunch of random quotes on it, and saw GUI options to add new quotes. What more would it take to be a quotes database website? DMacks 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per norm (reasons discussed on talk page

1. Notability - WP:NOTABILITY
2. References - WP:CITE & WP:WEB
3. Original Research - WP:OR

/Blaxthos 08:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever this website is, it doesn't appear to be notable. JIP | Talk 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website. Jcam 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Alexa Ranking = 88,346. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although not notable, this is the kind of article that might be worth keeping if it were interesting, but it's not. EdJohnston 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as it stands, per EdJohnson. I could provide references for the factual statements regarding the history of the site, but not so sure about finding anything about notability. I agree that it deserves mention somewhere...and there's already a sentence about it in bash.org, so maybe that text could be expanded a bit to explain the geneology of qdb.us, bash.org, and IRCQuotes (also AfD'ed) and moved to Quote Database page (see also the QDB dab page)...one main page about quote databases, and a detailed one about bash.org in particular. Then redirect QDB.us. DMacks 23:35, 10 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 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Industry

Fails WP:RS, WP:V. No reliable sources found through Google.--M8v2 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to assert notability. Fancruft.--Húsönd 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed my stance to Neutral, per Hahnchen.--Húsönd 15:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I have two print sources for this from PC Zone, one of which describes it as a Half-Life classic. I removed the prod citing give me some time to add these sources, and will do in due course, but I've spent most of my Wikipedia time today on DRV. I've deprodded quite a few mods asking for some more time, I'd quite like a few more weeks to clean them up, after that, fire away. - Hahnchen 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete YAHLM (Yet Another Half-Life Mod). Good luck to Hahnchen, but this isn't notable enough to merit cleanup. Opabinia regalis 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral then; no problem with trying to clean it up, though I'm not convinced a couple of reviews in PC Zone means notability. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The mod website hosts some press mentions. This includes 3 reviews of 3 different versions at PC Zone("Science wins again""A Half-Life Classic""Mod of the Month"). And a double page spread in some French magazine.[15][16]. This isn't just another Half-Life mod, and whereas its popularity now has waned, this was one of the most popular mods for Half-Life. It's not like I've just voted to keep every mod, far from it. - Hahnchen 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: no opinion on keeps/deletes, haven't checked what the consensus for notability and so on is, but I justwanted to confirm that Gen4 (the "some French magazine" ,-) ) is (or was at least at that time) one of the leading French computer game magazines and not some fanzine or so. I would consider this easily a reliable and reputable source for computer games and mods. Fram 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Hahnchen's reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note the brief mention here in Compter Gaming World [17], "but he leads us to suspect something a little like multiplayer Half-Life mod Science and Industry." -- Dragonfiend 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hahnchen. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Being somewhat familiar with ol' MCL, I think this mod should stay. WVhybrid 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not just any YAHLM. Delta Tango | Talk 04:59, 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 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galbadia Hotel

Essentially an advertisement. WarpstarRider 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - it is an article about a website that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:16, 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 Userfied -- Fan-1967 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Harpool

Vanity -Nv8200p talk 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7.--Húsönd 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- Some people don't know what a user page is for. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete or Userfy - No reason to bring this one to AFD Fan-1967 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have Userifed it and tagged the leftover redirect for deletion. If user tries to move it back to articlespace, we can address it then. Fan-1967 03:20, 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red & Anarchist Action Network

No evidence of notability within or outside the anarchist community. --Peta 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Jpe|ob 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The sidebar about anarchism is interesting, though I understand it's not part of the article. If there are no references, and just a bunch of links to supporter websites, then we have no verifiability or documentation, so delete. EdJohnston 23:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TZN Xenna

Doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think they can make a case for: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." as a founding punk band in Poland during Communist rule. Playing punk rock at that time and place must have been a lot of work. Here's a page on them: [18]. 54,300 GHits. I'm not super dedicated to the article, but I'm leaning towards keep. - Richfife 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep as it seems like the topic is notable. The editors still need to back up their claims by showing that this group is as important as they imply. Dekimasu 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article is changed to make the case for their notability. The write-up of the band cited by the reviewer above [19] is much more interesting than the Wikipedia article, and more informative about the records they made. Can't the details of their records be brought into the article? EdJohnston 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, though the article needs to be backed up with verifiable sources. If it can't be, then delete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:02, 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remnant Expressive Signing Team

I'm not convinced that this group meets WP:MUSIC. --Peta 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Google renders 5 results, including Wikipedia's.--Húsönd 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm crossing my fingers and hoping this AfD doesn't turn into the return of Young Crowd. - Richfife 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It pains me to want to delete something as cool as a Christian American Sign Language group, but I have to agree that they just aren't notable enough (and I looked hard to find anything that might make them notable). It's too bad that this will be deleted, but now that I'm aware of them I can keep up with the group on my own. - Lex 02:37, 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blind Pig (fiction)

No evidence of notability or encyclopedic merit. --Peta 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I guess it isn't technically fanfiction, but close enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Simon Speed 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, online collaborative projects are inherently non-notable. (Oh, wait...) Andrew Levine 01:22, 11 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 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Chronicals and Remember Tomorrow

A one issue college magazine, and a story that appeared in that magazine; unencyclopedic, delete.--Peta 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both They could have gone somewhere. But they didn't. - Richfife 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. MER-C 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Richfife got it exactly right. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October Sun Films

Delete, There is no indication that this firm has produced any films that meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Brimba 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete This is kind of a weird one that brings up a question that's been bopping around in the back of my head for a while. This company and their film "Line in the sand" get a lot of attention in the White Pride / Racism world, but almost none in traditional media. Sooo... Is it notable by standard Wikipedia reliable source standards? No. Should it be included as a part of that world? Maybe. But probably not. - Richfife 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This AFD sounds very familiar too. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 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 - Yomangani^talk 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phasing (Magic mechanic)

The article is about a single mechanic within the game of Magic: The Gathering. While the game itself deserves a page, and the rules deserve a page (having been nominated and kept), individual mechanics do not. Khaim 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated as similar pages: Haste, Vigilance (Magic mechanic), Fear (Magic mechanic).

• Delete as per nom Khaim 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all to Magic: The Gathering rules - Richfife 05:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all per above. MER-C 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that the information either a) already exists on that page or b) was deemed too minor to mention even on that page (see Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering_rules#Abilities). Khaim 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In a game that has thousands upon thousands of cards, we can't have a separate article for every single one. Not notable at all. --The Way 09:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply As the creator of these, I can say I was not trying to describe each and every card, just different mechanics, especially ones where there's a story to its name or, in the case of Phasing, there's a lot of confusion. -- Jbl1975 13 October 2006 01:04 EDT
  • Reply I agree with you, but Pokemon has set a pretty strong precedent here. - Richfife 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply If people have engaged in this with the Pokemon category then that doesn't necessarily count in favor of keeping this article; rather, it seems to imply that we should nominate most of those articles for deletion as well --The Way 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply They did. It didn't work. - Richfife 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all per Richfife. - Lex 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT a game guide, or failing that, merge all per above. Sandstein 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete neither notable nor encycopedic (i.e. game guide). Eluchil404 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge All Phasing had much more on it then what is there now. I just preferred to explain how certain names of mechanics got their names. If you feel these things could be merged into one page, then please do so, but I like the descriptions I have (and had) for each one. -- Jbl1975 13 October 2006 01:01 EDT

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani^talk 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Henley

Removed prod tag, sending here for discussion. Original reason for prod: Political candidate and middle-school History/Debate teacher. Unelected, and article padded with school debate team accomplishments. Naconkantari 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently, the only source for this article is the campaign's website bio. To me, this counts as self-published information and advocacy, and as such isn't a reliable source for background information. Anyone wishing to see the article kept should probably extend the article to incorporate other sources. Demi ^T/_C 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He's a Democrat running for congress in Houston, so I've got to give him credit for shear bloody mindedness. But, he hasn't been elected yet, so no. - Richfife 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you meant sheer bloody mindedness, or did you have The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in mind? --Calton | Talk 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr... Yeah. What you said. - Richfife 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Which would be me, since I'm the one who added the "Prod" tag. --Calton | Talk 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if he gets elected, then maybe he will be notable enough for an article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I removed the worst POV problems from the article and added a few links that could be used as reliable sources for the article text. 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 Henley in a brief search of the Houson Chronicle website. The article has the potential for expansion. Minus the POV, 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 · 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did a bit more editing. John Broughton | Talk 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no problem with this page after Jerysko's edits. Some Person 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Non-notable. If he gets elected, he'll be notable, but not right now. --TonySt 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that for now, he might be eligable for a Wikipedia article, but if he isn't elected, then the page should be deleted. 207.218.205.234 03:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep, y not? Mr. Sam 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Wikipedia operates on a "Guilty until proven innocent" policy. Articles have to justify their presence. - Richfife 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably, it would be impossible to cover a U.S. Congress race, like this one, without biographical articles on the participants. I think the question here is, should a House seat race be covered, merely because it's a House seat race? If so, it pretty much demands biographical information on the candidates. Demi ^T/_C 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think he is notable for now, but if he isn't elected, then the article should be deleted. -216.40.239.21 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Democratic Baptist pastor and public school teacher in Texas rare enough to be notable. Coach of national championship multiwinning team enough to be notable. Running for Congress too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- as per Jersyko and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. -- Sholom 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- regardless of whether or not he wins or loses, Jim Henley has mounted a true challenge to the incumbent, and his loss would not be the end of his involvement in politics. At the very least, the page should be kept up until the election in order to provide voters with information. Including information on John Culberson (R-TX), but not providing at least a link to Henley's homepage would represent a bias. Mysticfeline 22:29, 12 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 - Sam Clark's comments make a good summary - Yomangani^talk 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neural therapy

Despite the appearance of references, this is non-notable pseudoscience and spam. Obvious googling "neural therapy" will get you something, but "neural therapy" +procaine gets about 1000 results, +novocain another 80, most to the expected sorts of websites advertising their healing wares. Apparently someone did manage to get this published in a real journal - once, in 1956. The reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure your claim that is pseudo-science has any support. It is an alternative form of therapy that it is being practiced, tought and researched. So why dont we delete it in the german wikipedia? [20] Knowing chemistry means little in understanding medicine or biology. Why not place the article for revision since you know as little as I? And since you are such a spiteful person you add that "the reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia" when I knew perfectly that I meant ganglion.: Jcbohorquez (talk • contribs)

As I described, there's a distinct lack of published research on the subject, and a lack of sources indicating that it is a common alternative treatment despite this. One paper from 1956 does not make an article, regardless of what the German Wikipedia does or doesn't do. I was referring to the pluralization of "ganglion" as "ganglions", which suggested a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but as this is a reasonable error for a non-native English speaker I have stricken it. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Actually since there are several ganglion it is adecuate to say ganglions. Since you know the rules of wikipedia you can easily get this article deleted. I find this technic insulting and demeaning of what this site stands for. You should promote discussion not censorship. That is why I found your comments so viceral and was compelled to respond.

Language is a fre e moving social construction of meaning. Its purpose is to explain what we understand to others and to ourselves. I just found of encyclopedic value to know of alternative types of therapy. I did my best to improve the article. Theres a recent publication where patients prefer neural therapy over accupunture in accute pain. Since pain is a subjective experience the finding is of value to the medical community (patients and caretakers). I also found the article Ferdinand Heuneken published in 1961, listed in Science Direct. JCBohorquez Jcbohorquez 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Referenced description by the American Cancer Society (linked from the article), plus a fairly large number of google hits[21] suggest that this is a notable alternative therapy. Almost certainly pseudoscientific nonsense, too, but that's not what's at stake here. If it is kept, the article needs to address the point that 'There is no scientific evidence that neural therapy is effective in treating cancer or any other disease.'[22] and to be copyedited. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments were valuable and were added. I´m ignorant on what you call "copyedited". Jcbohorquez 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Jcbohorquez

• Delete I would not trust anyone with injecting anything into my ganglions (sic), unless they had peer-reviewed journal articles documenting double-blind clinical trials to back them up. The fact that this AfD is being disputed on grounds like "language being a free moving social construct" is also worrying. Policy-wise, this would appear to fail WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:FT and most certainly WP:BOLLOCKS. It would be irresponsible to provide a platform for this nonsense. Byrgenwulf 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this therapy is a good idea, but the evidence does seem to be that's it's fairly widely used, and therefore notable. That's why I argue 'keep'. Part of the improvement the article needs is certainly putting it into neutral, 'some people (referenced) believe that...' style. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Byrgenwulf. Even assuming this topic passes the notability test, the improvement it needs just won't happen. Not in this world. (sighs) Anville 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Homeopathic medicine cannot stand doble-bind clinical trials due to the nature of the propused therapy. Yet it is a common practice of alternative medicine and has an article in wikipedia. We should not debate if its scietifically valid, we should debate if its "knowledge" that should be included somehow into the wikipedia. Jcbohorquez 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Published scientific studies have been quoted in the Homeopathy article, actually. In addition, there have been double-blind clinical trials on Homeopathy, see the article. They strongly suggest a placebo effect, but the trials have been done. Anyways, the current article is not WP:NPOV. ColourBurst 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Tried to improve on comment by removing biased comparisson to accupunture. Jcbohorquez 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Niether of the following are good reasons to delete: 1. the article isn't NPOV or well-written; 2. the therapy it describes is pseudoscientific rubbish. 1 is a reason to improve the article. 2 is irrelevant: plenty of articles in WP are about rubbish without promoting rubbish. What's at stake is whether the subject of the article is notable - the evidence seems to be that it is - and whether an adequate article could be written about it - which doesn't seem impossible, given the improvement (e.g. in referencing) so far. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not about the efficacy of neural therapy. It is about the notability of the practice. There are over a hundred pubmed articles about the practice as well as lots of google hits. It deserves a well-researched article of its own (I've made some small changes). InvictaHOG 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It appears to me, from the discussion here, that it's notable, and I don't see merit in the other arguments. Gabrielthursday 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If there is an organized group of people doing this thing, it deserves an article. The Scientific status is irrelevant, we also have an article about Christian Science.Randroide 12:20, 12 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 hoax. JDoorjam Talk 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blooming iris

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Uhh. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod. -- Merope ^Talk 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uhh, "ancient Valensteinian cultures"? What nonsense. Delete Fan-1967 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the ancient Valensteinian culture. I think it was an little known sect of people from Jerusalem. KEEP IT—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historybuff11 (talk • contribs). (Note: New user with no previous edits)

Oh, I have been looking for this article for some time. Read about it in a kama sutra book I bought on Amazon. Great—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImJustCurious (talk • contribs). (Note: New user with no previous edits)

• Delete as nonsense. Erechtheus 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You don't have verifiability, so we don't even know of Valensteinian culture exists. And why would they be connected to the kama sutra? ColourBurst 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Snowball delete as hoax. " "Blooming Iris" "Kama Sutra" " gets 110 hits, the majority of which are from FTD.com and have nothing to do with the purported subject. When removing references to FTD, seven hits remain, all of which are just copies of the FTD content. And the sockpuppetry above, to quote User:JzG, "hardens my heart." JDoorjam Talk 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax, but SNOW is not policy. Dekimasu 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge/Redirect to Fisting --Roninbk _{t c e #} 12:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not unless you can find a source that says this term is ever used for it. Fan-1967 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a dominatrix and my female customers have requested a blooming iris on occasion. I didn't know of the word origin, but I think this should STAYSexymama789 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: New user with no previous edits)

• Comment When this AFD is closed, can closing admin please ban Bloomingiris (talk • contribs) and all his/her fake accounts. This is totally unacceptable. Fan-1967 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone. Recury 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no good sources when I look. And isn't it the job of the authors of the article to provide such sources? --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete zero google hits for "Valensteinian", and the sock puppets aren't even really bothering to hide themselves. -Markeer 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• "himself" actually. Since all the socks make the same formatting mistakes, looks like it's just one. Fan-1967 17:10, 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 as spam by Premeditated Chaos. MER-C 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hang (instrument)

Advertisement. And the links to it. Anthony Appleyard 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. Note that the creator is Gidda (talk • contribs), who is mentioned in the article. So tagged. MER-C 06:15, 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 The article presently has no reliable sources; keep commenters offer mostly weak arguments of the "Wikipedia has an article on X, and X is awful, so we should keep this too" variety. Consensus for deletion is stronger on arguments and in number. Xoloz 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BackAndLay

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. So tagged. If this one gets deleted, I'll tag the 3 articles nominated below too. MER-C 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't add this inappropriate tag again. It was removed once, and I'll remove it again. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, relatively small but nevertheless influential betting exchange in the UK which is in opposition to Betdaq and Betfair. This exchange is steadily acquiring liquidity and it is entirely possible that once reasonable liquidity levels are achieved that the 1% commisssion basis may result in it becoming the major UK exchange. Whilst small, it is still a sizeable presence in some key UK betting markets, and the occasional very serious trade is exercised intra players on there. The article does however need some work and should demonstrate notability to a greater extent than it does. I will give this some attention if the article survives what appears to be an unnecessary and spurious attempt to delete. Sjc 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do so before the discussion period ends, if you can. We can't judge the article on the merits of what you might write next week. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no intention of working on an article which is arbitrarily slated for deletion. If it is removed from the deletion list I may consider expending some of my time and my effort on it. But otherwise not. Sjc 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reasoning for deletion given. Article needs work to discuss business status but should have gotten a stub tag. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason that the nominator gives is that the article doesn't demonstrate how the subject satisfies our WP:CORP criteria for companies, products, and services. Uncle G 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. Would it have killed the nominator to state what you just said? The nominator made several apparently random nominations at the same time, with no stated reason for any of them. This article obviously states its reasons for notability, but apparently the article was not even read. The company may well not meet WP:CORP, but that was not the nomination so lets not pretend it is. 2005 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources given to verifiably show the notability of this website. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources given. I was unable to find anything that would make me think otherwise in the first 20 results on Google. Company website has an Alexa ranking of 946,504.
• Delete per nom. Inadequate article, subject not notable. EdJohnston 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If BackAndLay's entry is deleted then, by the same criteria, all other betting exchanges should be deleted too. The existing sections on betting exchanges - products faciliated by the internet - seems proportionate and balanced. Betfair rightly gets the most coverage, but the minor competitors like this one have their brief place too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.85.183 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-07 00:18:11 (UTC)
  • Wrong. They do not. Wikipedia is not a business directory and "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The criteria are WP:CORP, and each company has to satisfy them on its own merits. BETDAQ#References shows how a company can satisfy them. Companies that do not satisfy them have no place here. Uncle G 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, Its main claim to fame is that its owner has a certain notoriety within the UK betting industry and certainly online among online punters. He is a frequent correspondent with the Racing Post on betting industry-related matters and he has attained a profile out of proportion to the traffic his betting exchange appears to drive. I maintain the entry is worth preserving as stub, as the website might acquire more significance over time. Right now, its main claim to fame is that it is possibly the only totally unfunded betting exchange start-up on the web.
• Delete No sign of meeting WP:Corp. Not a notable betting exchange (yet). Catchpole 20:26, 11 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 - Yomangani^talk 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BetBug

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Move. Betbug is a subsiduary of Trident Gaming PLC. Trident is unlisted but seems to be notable enough to warrant an entry (e.g., statement that 8% stake held by Waltech Services Pic is worth 4M GBP - link to Waltech Chairman's Statement) QuiteUnusual 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:CORP for our notability criteria for companies, products, and services. They don't involve measuring the values of shareholdings, in part because such values change from day to day and provide no stable criterion. See WP:SOFTWARE for similar criteria for computer software. Uncle G 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was - if the stake is worth 4M GBP, then the total company is worth 50M GBP. That is, it is a relatively large private company. I make no claims for it being notable beyond that as no information is readily available in the public domain. QuiteUnusual 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Catchpole 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services, WP:SOFTWARE, et alia. As such, no reputable, third-party sources are available as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:14, 14 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 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBetX

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:33, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TradeSports

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:WEB following a Lexis-Nexis search. Examples of sources to come...Sources whose primary subject is Tradesports added to references section. Pan Dan 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in light of sourcing by User:Pan Dan. — TKD::Talk 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 2005 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Pan Dan. Englishrose 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Wikipedia: Notability (companies and corporations) states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: ... The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." References section as edited by Pan Dan indicates some of those sources. Recommend that Nlu withdraw the nomination, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Thesmothete 04:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above and recent sourcing. RFerreira 01:34, 11 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 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xchangebet

Insufficient assertions of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 364 Ghits (and nothing in the news) for a fairly unique moniker suggests a distinct lack of notability. --DeLarge 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of meeting WP:CORP. Catchpole 20:31, 11 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. JIP | Talk 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald F. Bernard

Non-Notable, Vanity, SPAM Francisx 06:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) This article violates [WP:Notability] policy and appears to be a vanity publishing created in order to market this person's lectures.

• Delete High sodium. Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 06:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. QuiteUnusual 09:49, 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 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short-Media

No reliable sources, Google test (which is fairly reliable for internet subjects) revealed only 17 unique hits, and still no reliable sources for verification; no indication that it has attracted enough attention to be able to write about it in an encyclopedic fashion, using a neutral point of view. Captainktainer * Talk 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope others will add to the article so that it becomes notable. Short-Media is small in comparison to sites like AnandTech and [H]ard|OCP, but I don't think that alone should preclude it from having an entry in Wikipedia. Racantrell 07:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I remember this, or more specifically I remember Icrontic being hacked and Short-media replacing it. I don't think that counts as notability though, and nor does an Alexa traffic rank of 33,000.[23] Both Anandtech and [H]ardOCP are much higher, while their participation in F@H is irrelevant. Allowing this would, I fear, set the notability bar too low for techie websites. --DeLarge 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability asserted. Fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a website directory Bwithh 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The evidence given above persuades me that this company lacks notability, by web standards. Web data plus media coverage is all we have to go on for web-type companies. EdJohnston 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not tobe Deleted it is someone else property, only the admin have the right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.12 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 October 2006.
  • Actually, you're completely wrong. The people who contributed to the article released their contributions under the GFDL, which means that while they still hold copyright, we can do pretty much whatever we like with their contributions as long as we credit them and preserve the article history. While only admins have the power to delete the entire article, we, the Wikipedia community, are expected to comment on Articles for Deletion and say whether or not (and why) we think an article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 18:31, 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 speedily deleted by Eagle 101. MER-C 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattel HyperScan

Article written entirely based on one press release. --InShaneee 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 07:37, 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action civique de Québec

Only two lines of content that looks like a poor translation from english, and the info boxes are not even done properly JenLouise 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete The site isn't just a poor translation, it's absolute nonsense. Plus, none of the links work and the table on the right isn't programmed correctly. --The Way 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep - I thought this might be salvageable as a stub if the info could be translated (poor English and bad formatting are not deletion criteria), but the domain name registration expired last month. The only English language Ghits I'm getting are to WP/mirrors, and without external verifiability it has to go. Maybe someone could use the non-English links to create a Fr:WP article, but not here.

• Salvage job seems to have sorted this. Still not many Ghits (1610 is not "plenty" in my book, and no Google News hits even in Canada and French language-specific sites), but seems to meet notability requirements regardless. --DeLarge 10:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it was an incredibly poor article, but I have cleaned it up, and now it is a perfectly good stub. The official site works fine for me, and Quebec City's own website indicates that the party is the second largest party on the City Council, with 6 of the 37 seats ([24]). It is notable and verifiable.

  A Google search turns up plenty of hits. I note that WP:V does not preclude the use of non-English sources; it simply prefers the use of English-language versions where available for the convenience of English-speaking readers (and Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability"). I strongly disagree with the notion that the lack of English-language sources (not surprising for a local political party in an overwhelmingly non-English speaking city) somehow renders the subject non-notable and non-verifiable, but that it would be okay for there to be an article on the French-language wikipedia. Skeezix1000 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as stub given Skeezix1000's excellent salvage job. They have contested elections and so are notable. Keresaspa 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable political party in a major Canadian city. Kirjtc2 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep wonderful salvage job. Notable due to actually being elected. I would love to see this article expanded as I am sure there is more information about this party available. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from the information that they hold 6 of the 37 council seats, and a pointer to their seldom-updated web site, I'm not sure that this tells us anything about the Action Civique de Québec. I'd support deletion of the article now, and recreation if anyone has time to do a proper article. The other parties on the City Council don't have articles yet, and I sure wouldn't recommend they get ones like this. As an office-holding political party I agree that the A.C.Q. are notable. It's just that the stub is so small it makes you feel you wasted your time looking it up and reading it. As a temporary measure, could a section be added to the Quebec City Council page that just has the URLs of the party web sites? EdJohnston 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google News Archive shows that they have received plenty of coverage in the Canadian French media and shows potential for expansion. [25] As the party has successfully endorsed candidates for election, it is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real party with real office-holders, what more do you want? Sandstein 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've seen plenty of articles on other language Wiki's that are only stubs of lengthy English language articles. Turnaround's fair play, n'est ce pas? Atrian 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep valid stub per Skeezix and Atrian. Ground Zero | t 04:55, 11 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 against recreation/userfication. Looking past the bold-lettered quasi-votes, there is actually a unanimous consensus here that this article is presently close to unreadable: I concur in that judgment. Subject may be notable, but this article is not encyclopedic in the extreme. I will happily userfy for anyone interested in clean-up, but it is otherwise better to start fresh. Xoloz 02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Ekhwa

The article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever JenLouise 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as band appears to be notable but article totally unreadable. If not deleted needs cleaning for circular references, copy edit. QuiteUnusual 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a quick bit of Googling imlies that they're notable in their market. But holy crapola, does it need a cleanup tag attached... --DeLarge 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no bias against recreation. The article as it stands is so far gone that it can't be copyedited into English, and will never be fixed. This is the kind of article that hurts the reputation of Wikipedia. Dekimasu 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After a cleanup, this article will be fine. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough evidence of notability. Intro is word salad.Edison 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without objection to recreation, the article needs a complete overhaul to be usable. I think it's better to start it anew, as I don't know if anything can be salvaged. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:11, 13 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 Roberta Kalechofsky. El_C 08:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews for Animal Rights

It is cabal-cruft. This is pure Wikipedia:Fancruft. There is allegedly a cabal on Wikipedia that is pro Jewish, pro animal rights and this is just a Fancrufty article based off such fan interests. Thus, it makes it cabal-cruft. The article also is purely non-notable. The book sources don't reference the organization and some even were published before it began -- they are also non-notable sources, too, and most look self-published, which fails wikipedia's notability guidelines. The website references failed WP:V and WP:N and WP:WEB (including failing google and alexa), making the article failing WP:V and WP:N. The organization also fails WP:ORG. DyslexicEditor 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Em-jay-es 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Hmmm ... if the page was created by a pro-Jewish, pro-animal rights cabal, I'm it, and I'm clearly somewhat off-message, because I think the page should be merged with Roberta Kalechofsky, its founder. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Seconded merge proposal. What he said. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Given that the entire table of contents consists of "See also", "Notes", "References" and "Further reading", We're hardly going to overwhelm the Roberta Kalechofsky page by merging/redirecting. --DeLarge 10:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is only a cabal if you want there to be one --Roninbk _{t c e #} 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge article, and avoid "cabal" allegations in future nominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Wait for sources on notability. This is not a garage band or other obviously non-notable organization and should be given time to provide independent evidence of notability. If no evidence is forthcoming, Merge per above. Agree that nominations should stick to policy criteria like non-notability and personal objections to an organization's POV etc. are not legitimate grounds for a deletion nomination and should not appear in them. --Shirahadasha 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cabal orders. Oh wait, SV is the head of the cabal and says to merge. This cabal really needs to work on its communication abilities. Ok, joking aside merge but maybe give some time to see if anyone can locate other sources? JoshuaZ 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have a meeting set up with myself tonight to discuss how better to communicate with myself in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Anomo 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Merge" closures generally don't get carried out. Move the wanted data to Roberta Kalechofsky and delete/redirect. --Aaron 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 07:57, 13 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 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom time hypothesis

As his claim is so radically opposed to the sciences of archaeology, dating, etc., it is incumbent upon Heribert to prove that his claims are more than disatisfaction with current dating methods and supposed radical innacuracies of medieval scribes. This is Heribert's only claim to fame, his only reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As such, is it enough to actually justify any page on him? I think not and have thus nominated this thoroughly implausible theory for deletion. Banaticus 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• speedy keep. the theory is bunk, of course, but bunk of sufficient notability. See the German version. dab (ᛏ) 08:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep, notable theory. we don't delete articles on theories based on their plausibility. bogdan 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Heribert Illig and re-direct (or disambig). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bunk, but quite notable bunk. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Heribert Illig. There is already significant duplication between the two articles. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and put in pseudoscience category. It's notable enough to be mentioned. LHOON 12:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  It's already in Pseudoarchaeology and Pseudohistory categories, which are subcategories of Pseudoscience category. bogdan 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The German version might be notable. But the books haven't been translated into English and the theories are completely ridiculous. If this were the German Wikipedia, then it might be notable enough to keep. But 1) the theory is just plain stupid and 2) is not notable in English -- it thus should not be on the English Wikipedia. If the German Wikipedia editors feel that it's notable enough to host over there, more power to them. Additionally, relevant information from this article has already been merged with that on Heribert. This particular article should be deleted. Banaticus 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just because the sources are in German doesn't make it not notable or not verifiable. "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." (from WP:V) --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Illig published the books himself (according to the German Wikipedia Heribert Illig discussion page). Maelnuneb, the same page that you quoted begins with the statment, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." (Their emphasis, not mine.) The source of these crank allegations is not a reputable publisher. Banaticus 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep nutty but published independently: see Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8/4 (1997) where Illig got his moment of fame. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should follow the link I gave to the German Wikipedia and inform them of that, Angus McLellan. By the way, the link you gave appears to essentially be a syllabus -- I didn't see anything on that page which contradicts the German Wikipedia's assertion that Heribert published this himself. Banaticus 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the editorial board of EWE (as it is now called) doesn't include Illig: Loh, for example, is a Professor of Sociology at Paderborn, Keil-Slawik of Computing & Society. The journal has been published for 14+ years. One issue had some material on Illig, largely rebuttals of his work. And yes, the link is to a table of contents. The printed journals are issued by the academic publishers Lucius & Lucius. Everything seems quite above board. Illig has been published in a reliable source, but his ravings were rejected and probably, going by the table of contents, on the grounds that the WP article gives: the need for massive and highly improbable cross-cultural collusion (Gunnar Heinsohn: Armenier und Juden als Testfall für die Streichung von drei Jahrhunderten durch Heribert Illig) and on astronomical grounds (Wolfhard Schlosser: Astronomie und Chronologie). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Patent nonsense. Or merge with Omphalos theory which says the world could have been created 2 minutes ago.Edison 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. There is significant overlap. Just because a theory is garbage does not automatically mean it is not encyclopedic. The vast majority of theologians say The Jesus Seminar are a bunch of jerks, and there are still some Flat Earthers around. RickReinckens 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Those examples have achieved public recognition and notability in English, which this article hasn't. Banaticus 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep very notable information for everyone who looks at the world with questions. The subject concerned, the middle or 'dark' ages, is indeed a very questionable period. Also a reminder that history has more to do with politics then math. Every history scholar can tell you there is no singular correct version of history, it comes from different sources. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinBeck.
• Keep, from the point of view of History of Architecture this could well be true. -- Petri Krohn 07:36, 10 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 seems to be a duplicate of List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants, no reason presented why that's inadaquate. Content from that article can be split though if there's a consensus. W.marsh 00:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants

Along with the daughter articles, this duplicates information already at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Something needs to go, here, and I think it should be the set that is strangely organized and strangely named. Further nominations on the daughter articles to follow. --Dekimasu 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The further nominations are for the following:

• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Africa
• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Asia
• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Europe
• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: North America
• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Oceania
• List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: South America

Note that because the lists include capitals even when the capitals have less than 100,000 people, the Oceania list is not so much of a list of cities as a list of capitals. Having the articles separate also has led to them being in different states of disrepair (the Europe article lists the populations of some consitutent cities, but others don't). Dekimasu 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that deleting the single list would derail coordinated work at Wikipedia:Missing articles for towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Dekimasu 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any additional information (for example, from the Europe list) and redirect to List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants (also, consider dropping the "towns and" from that title while we're at it). Nom has a very good point; however, I don't see the need for deletion here. -- Visviva 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• This could be a long list, I can see that already. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Turn into a category On the other hand, this has a virtue of being completable; however, a category would be a lot easier to maintain and the only value of a list would be to sort it by country, something that would be easily done by having country categories. Or merge it into the whole list. However, 100000 people seems like a low threshold to me, but that's a subjective thing. ColourBurst 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft w/o clear purpose. What kind of magic is in the 100k number? Please do not create category. Categories should be used only for major defining characteristics, not as a poor man database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Powers of ten (and other round numbers) to denote milestone achievements are not really magic, but they are useful; we have plenty of them around here. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a quick perusal here found 3000 hit club, while there's no magic about 3000 hits rather than 3127, people tend to think in round numbers; Category:Centenarians nothing really magic about 100 years rather than 99 or 101, is there? And, of course, nearly every list in Category:Top_lists is some round number from the Fortune 500 & Fortune 1000 (not that Fortune thought too hard about the Fortune 488 or the Fortune 1109) to The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, not the 101 or the 99 greatest, etc.... Carlossuarez46 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously another weakness of Wikipedia. A more serious argument against the list (or cat): in the Czech Republic cities with > 100k people get larger percentage of money from state budget than the smaller cities. As a result those just a little bellow the threshold cheat in many ways at the time of making the decision. The "official" numbers easily jump up by hundredths to thousands overnight. There are five cities (Olomouc, Hradec Kralove, Pardubice, Usti nad Labem, Liberec) that oscilate around 100k every year. At least the lists should acknowledge inherent fuzziness of their classification. Pavel Vozenilek 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • That weakness of WP is self-imposed: verifiability from a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion; not truth. So these lists are no more nor less accurate than any article that purports to give a population figure (which changes daily in any large area anyhow). To contrast the Czech example: in the US, and may other places probably, there are serious under-counts by census because some people don't respond, some people shouldn't be in the country at all, some people are wanted for crimes, some people have no fixed abode (homeless), and (not surprisingly) some people don't trust the government with their information. But, nearly every entry on a populated US geographic entity here uses the census population figures. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - get rid of the capital cities anomaly by all means but I see no reason to dismiss this as list-cruft. Why do you say these pages are "strangely organised"? There are too many cities to include in one world-wide page so the continent pages are necessary. Most wotld lists split off by continent when they get too long - why not here? If you really want to delete something on the grounds of duplication it should be the other list (the "towns and cities" one, I mean). Jameswilson 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean out the entries (capital cities) that don't belong. The list meets the list criteria: it's verifiable and clear what should go in and should not (needs that clean up though). Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Once again, this list already exists at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Whether it is too long or not is debatable, but the page with all cities over 100,000 together is at 59KB. This is definitely a workable page length in the case of a list. It makes more sense to me to have one page instead of seven, and I'm irked by the page that is nothing more than a list of lists. Separating the lists has already caused the editing of them to diverge, and this makes the lists less reliable. Looking through the pages, I trust the List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants more than the others. At any rate, the main point was that there is duplication going on and something needs to go. Dekimasu 01:23, 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 already deleted. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Heart

this page was created by Mary Jessup, I know her personally and she's a self proclaimed wikivandal that gets a kick out of posting nonsense. She's not a musican and does not have any albums. Evaunit511 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, follows from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jessup. Punkmorten 10:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just get rid of this crap. -- Kicking222 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If only the creator had a user so they could be easily blocked. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:18, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark McCoy

Non-notable election candidate. Contested prod. MER-C 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO for politicians. 26 ghits. Mitaphane _talk 11:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If he wins, he gets an article, but until then the only media attention he has seems to be by the Libertarian party themselves, so he fails WP:BIO --Mnemeson 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. If such sources existed, the fact that this article reads like an advertisement would not be ground for deletion, but rather for appropriate tags or rewriting to conform to said sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if he wins the election, he might be notable enough for an article, but until then, adios. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. RickReinckens 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails On October 19th, 2006 a Debate will take place in Belleville, IL. All major third-party candidates have been invited and given the initial indication that they will attend. Clearly Mark McCoy is a notable politician in Illinois. The incumbents would love this entry deleted because they see Mark McCoyas a viable threat to win. Although Mark's campaign is only 10 days old - there is already significant interest throughout the state, an official endorsement by the Libertarian Party of Illinois, and debates are currently being planned with other all major third party candidates. Mark McCoy was recently a featured speaker at the state convention in Springfield, Illinois Please do not censor Mark McCoy because he has yet to win office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellin (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chesterfield Settlement

Apart from existing, this recreational centre has done nothing else of note. Doesn't warrant an article about it. —Xezbeth 11:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 11:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and it doesn't even exist any more. All the information in the article is covered in a sentence or so in the Violet Markham article, where it belongs. Google turns up nothing important about it. Might be worth a line in some local history article somewhere.Noroton 18:56, 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 speedy delete. MER-C 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Gales

Looks like a {{db-bio}}, but I'll check it here. Googling "Pledge "Jeremy Gales"" gives 1 unrelated hit. feydey 11:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC) What needs to be changed? for it to stay?

I speedy deleted the article. Fails WP:MUSIC pretty miserably. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:37, 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. AnnH ♫ 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karla Pope

I am not sure this meets WP:BIO. Although the incident meets WP:V, it may not be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, so rather than WP:PRODing it, it has gone to AFD. NC Moors 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete - and speedy it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.... this is fairly notable stuff, did you not see the link?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.232.199.242 (talk • contribs) .

I have speedy deleted this page as nonsense created by a vandal. See the remaining contributions from that editor (whom I have blocked). AnnH ♫ 12:41, 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 speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limmy

Non-notable website with just about 11900 Ghits Jusjih 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Article does not establish notability. If he is notable, a complete rewrite would be necessary anyway. Even if cleaned up, I doubt it would pass WP:WEB, as limmy.com has an Alexa rank of 285,660 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 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 When keep commenters point to an online sockpuppeting incident as a reason for notability, they damage their own cause, and cast some doubt on their own motives. Anons/SPAs discounted. Xoloz 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph "Corky" Coker

Vanity page added by an apparent associate of Mr. Coker (User:CokerTire) --Flex 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to "Corky Coker" Qmax 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep page, Corky Coker is an icon in the restoration community. If it was not for Mr. Coker it would be very difficult to get period correct bias ply whitewall tires. --68.214.216.253 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Natalieduerinckx 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is sufficiently notable. He is a former chairman of the board of SEMA, and he is the president of President of a prominent company in the automotive aftermarket industry. Info-freedom. Also, he is somewhat famous for an online sockpuppeting incident, described here: http://www.hotrodders.com/corky-coker.html 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Does a reliable source start with, "We think that Corky Coker, of Coker Tire, is a jerk. Actually, we think a lot worse of him, but all we're going to say is 'jerk'"? I also question whether that "famous" incident is at all notable in the context of the Wikipedia. (NB, I have no connection with Mr. Coker, with the forums mentioned, or with hot-rodding of any sort. I stumbled upon this page and nominated it for deletion for the reasons given above.) --Flex 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In considering the action, the word "Jerk" seems intentionally restrained. Many "reliable" sources have made much worse claims about individuals. Reliability is established when the allegations match the facts. If you doubt the reliability of the information, you can call up Coker Tire on the phone. Also, you can call up Discovery Channel or SEMA. Regarding notability, I had made a strong case for it in the article's discussion page. In addition to the notablility of the described episode, the fact that Coker Tire is involved in an extremely blatant vanity article attempt on Wikipedia lends notability to the previous incident. Anyway, Qmax deleted my discussion comments, although an administrator was kind enough to restore them to the discussion page, where you can now view them. This is the second time that my comments had been deleted from the discussion page in an attempt to cover-up the information. BTW, Qmax's request to "rename" is being done for search engine optimization purposes. He wants the page to rank well for the phrase "Corky Coker". This is why he wants it to be titled exactly as such, rather than with the more appropriate title which lists first and last name, as well as nickname. For example, see this entry in Qmax's blog: http://chattablogs.com/quintus/archives/040292.html .--Info-freedom 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll let the community decide about the reliability of that source and the notability of Mr. Coker, but while I agree that your comments should not have been deleted from the talk page, I don't think this article can stand on its own merits apart from any alleged "cover-up." --Flex 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • User:Info-freedom suggested I explicitly cite WP:VAIN#What_is_encyclopedic? in regard to the "famous" discussion board incident. As far as I can tell, Coker was allegedly involved in spamming to a discussion board and following it up with some sock puppetry. Those are not crimes and are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia as I read the guidelines. --Flex 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed w/Flex, "not encyclopedic" is a reasonable argument for deletion. Although, it's interpretive. Regarding the nature of the incident as not a crime, Coker's sock puppetry incident may constitute the crime of a threat, or the crime of wire fraud. In the referenced post note how Coker puts the administrator's first and last name, and his town and state of residence, as the title of his post. In addition, he falsifies his location. Rather than entering his home state, he enters CO, the administrator's home state. In his post, he says: "watch what you say and who you say it to. You never know when it may really come back to bite you." This veiled threat, coupled with falsifying his location such that it is the same as the forum administrator's, may constitute a crime. In addition, I contend that the resultant wave in the industry from this episode is notable, rather than the encapsulated episode itself.--Info-freedom 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The discussion about the Coker's sock puppetry should probably go back to Talk:Joseph "Corky" Coker, but I will say here that unless he was convicted or officially charged with a crime, you may not raise that allegation here. That is original research and perhaps libel. --Flex 20:21, 12 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40 Oz

None notable song. Poorly written. A better written and formated version of this article was deleted before--M8v2 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it was a single and had a video and is by someone notable. Recury 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, poorly written but existing one. Has a video. Was a B-side of "My band" and the latter charted well. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can show me where this got wide release as a single in a major market. Being a b-side is not notable at all. GassyGuy 08:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The number of tiny stubs with deletion potential on Wikipedia might double if it had an article on every song ever released as a single by a notable group/singer, and there's not much about this song to write about. "40 Oz" didn't achieve much chart success, no major awards, whatever. Unless somewhere cares that the song is about fighting and the video takes place at a club, it's better to just not bother with it at all. 2Pac 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only a b-side. Catchpole 20:34, 11 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 as failing WP:WEB. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eskimo Bob

Not notable. Does not comply with WP:WEB. Simonkoldyk 18:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Should also include Eskimo Bob characters in this AfD as well. --141.156.232.179 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. I slapped {{db-web}} tags on both pages; I don't think {{db-web}} existed yet when this nomination was made. hopefully an admin will just nuke both articles. --Aaron 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I blammed one, but not this main article. I really hate this argument but Eskimo Bob actually had a fairly large internet following. I'll look up stats when I'm less busy. Yanksox 02:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As usual for this type of article, no reliable sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Simonkoldyk 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of 1,782,948. Definitely fails WP:WEB. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - has had a large internet following in the past, goes on and off. it's in a bit of a lull now but this article has been active for well over a year now, it just needs a bit of work Cancellorian 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

An active article dosen't mean we keep it on wikipedia. If it has a big enough fan base it should be able to pass WP:WEB. --Simonkoldyk 03:00, 11 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 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Isaacson

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable recording artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maelnuneb (talk • contribs).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 1450 ghits. MER-C 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom.Noroton 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:45, 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 was Redirect to Protest the Hero - Yomangani^talk 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Hoskin

None notable person. All the info in this stub is already covered in the Protest the Hero article. None Neutral Point of View. Vanity. --M8v2 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Protest the Hero. Only in one band and the band has released only one full-length. Only 546 Google results altogether, counting WP mirrors and unrelated hits. Prolog 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Protest the Hero. - Triviaa 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Protest the Hero. Atrian 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect NN on his own right. -- Chabuk 21:42, 11 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 - aside from the argument below, this is also original research. Yomangani^talk 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Dog (Hard Boiled)

Non-notable outside the movie, and a minor enough role that there's no point in merging. Virogtheconq 05:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. --Dhartung | Talk 15:57, 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 Eluchil404 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Mirabal

None notable person. Not neutral point of view. Poorly written. Vanity. Copyright violation--M8v2 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

keep - umm, so noone reverted a pretty obvious copyvio dump a while ago, but that is no reason to delete the article on a pretty well known artist. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Google search reveals he is notable with multiple press sources covering him and several CDs on sale at Amazon.com. Vic sinclair 05:31, 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 Keep. Xoloz 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaghayegh Farahani

None notable person. Fails WP:BIO. IMDB only has 3 entrys. Vanity--M8v2 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uncertain, leaning towards keep. It's a bit tough to determine where to draw the line for an Iranian stage/film actress. However, according to the IMDB, Leila, one of her movies, was distributed internationally and apparently got a certain amount of critical attention, including a New York Times review. However, she's the 7th cast member listed, so it's hard to say how big the part was. The IMDB cast list doesn't even give a name to her character ("second wife"), but on the other hand it doesn't give a name to any of the characters except the two main protagonists. This one is too close to call, so no vote from me, but it definitely isn't a clear-cut case for deletion. Nominator's accusation of vanity is almost certainly untrue: article creator has been around since 2005 and has many other contributions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I had typed in "delete" after looking at IMDB, but then did a Google search. She seems to be famous among Iranians, although nearly all the Web sites seem to be in Persian. She starred in "Butterfly in the Wind" and won the "Best Actress" award for that role at the 2004 Amiens International Film Festival[26], and she was interviewed by the Iranian Times Web site (in Persian and in a PDF file which I can't figure out how to translate). There are 129 or so English Google hits and about 3,500 in total. You could certainly make the case that she's only worth an article in a Farsi Wikipedia and not in English I suppose, but apparently those three movies on IMDB have been translated into English, so some people might be interested in her. There are lots of Iranian immigrants in the U.S.Noroton 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep just poking around google I was able to find quite a few sites in Arabic with this person's name. I am not going to pretend that I can read Arabic and google was pretty much unable to translate the sites for me. Despite these problems, the number of name matches alone leads me to believe that she is probably notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Noroton said that language was Persian not Arabic. Either way, same problem applied, I just wanted to make sure my mistake was noted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:34, 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 Protest the Hero. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Millar

None notable person. All the info in this stub is already covered in the Protest the Hero article. None Neutral Point of View. Vanity.--M8v2 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Protest the Hero seems pretty notable, although hopefully this can be cleaned up and expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Protest the Hero. Only in one band and the band has released only one full-length. Seems to lose out to other Tim Millars (and there aren't many, only 696 results altogether) in a Google search. Prolog 14:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Protest the Hero. - Lex 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Protest the Hero. Atrian 00:53, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vahid Tarokh

Based upon Vahid Tarokh's own request for deletion of this page. Please see the talk page Ghlobe 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Courtesy delete. Sounds at least borderline notable based on the infromation in the article, but my opinion is that if a borderline or questionable article subject wishes their article to be deleted, we should honour that request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence *at all* that Tarokh blanked it; please also see my comment below. -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per comments by Starblind above. Change to Strong Keep as per comments below by Splash. Even if Vahid Tarokh is the one requesting the article be deleted(which I doubt), I'm not sure it would be a consideration. This guy is notable enough to warrant an article... whether he likes it or not. Jcam 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The man seems more than notable enough for wikipedia: through his inventions, through the awards, through the honorary degrees (I don't think someone would get an honorary degree from Harvard for nothing) and through being "one of the Top 10 Most Cited Researchers in Computer Science according to the ISI web of science." Also, I would need to see proof that 72.70.95.56 (talk • contribs) is indeed Vahid Tarokh himself, before considering the request. Furthermore, I'm not in favour of deleting articles because the subject requests it: either people are notable enough for wikipedia and they get an article, or they're not notable enough and they don't get an article. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on resume. The subject certainly meets WP:PROF and we keep many more borderline cases simply because of slightly higher public notability or infamy for other reasons. The user's request is a valid consideration but not sufficient by itself in this case. (Apologies.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep definitely notable and as the last 2 comments stated, just because the subject wants an article deleted, that doesn't mean it should be. The subject is of course quite welcome to help correct any inaccuracies in the article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, incredibly famous person in the field in which I just completed my PhD - he invented a scheme (space-time coding, see also space-time block code and space-time trellis code) that changed the face of wireless communications research at a stroke. He is faculty at Harvard. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the person who blanked the article and its talk page is Tarokh himself. The article is rather poor because it was written by a student/employee of Tarokh's who had some reflected vanity issues; I got beaten to writing it myself but believe me that he is one of the most notable individuals in the whole of the field. His two most famous papers, references [6] and [7] in space-time block code are amongst the most widely cited journal articles in wireless. (Don't believe what you read at Citeseer; it's rubbish at this kind of thing.) -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. Also, the vandalism in this case (i.e. anon blanking of article and talk page) unfortunately ruined the credibility of this deletion request. Dl2000 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well sourced and the AfD is solely based on (unnecessary) modesty from the person it deals with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:51, 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 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bros (lifestyle)

I tagged this article as initially unreferenced and possible OR (among other problems), and the creator kept removing all the tags (even the unrelated ones) and putting in a single reference link to UrbanDictionary, despite my telling him that it was not really a reliable source. He then blanked the article and asked for its deletion. I can see it may be a valid subject for an article, but as yet I've been unable to come up with any sources for this slang (besides the better-known ones already in widespread usage) so am bringing it to AfD for wider discussion over whether this really is a known, verifiable subculture. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "Bros", of course, gets zillions of Google hits, being a major pop band as well as part of Warner Bros, Super Mario Bros, etc. But Bros +offroading produces nothing relevant in the first few pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some good sources are found (which isn't totally out of the question on a topic like this, I could see some magazine writing a feature about it or something). Recury 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up on the trail one day. --Dhartung | Talk 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and that's not even what bro means. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 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 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Men Win Fights

Incomplete nom started by Secondtonine. No reason given. First AFD here. Yomangani^talk 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I was awaiting a response to my help request as I have bungled the AFD codes.

Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:Vanity. Please also see the previous [log]. Secondtonine 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 656 Ghits--Jusjih 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Charlesknight 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the criteria for notability listed in WP:BAND, and, as such, there are no reputable, third-party sources from which to confirm the contents are required by WP:V. --Satori Son 20:08, 12 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 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Whyte

Unverified claims of being a 5x polyglot and award-winning German-English composer, singer, and author at 16 aside, no relevant Google searches or references have been provided in the 48 hours this has been open. "References" include a personal website (domain registered on 05 October 2006 by his mother, apparently), a link to his mother's website, and a link to a performance of one of the operas mentioned that does not give his name (birth or current). Delete; this belongs on his site, not ours. -- nae'blis 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Likely either a hoax or exaggeration: it's hard to imagine Pagliaccio played by a 12-year-old (the part is usually a tenor), and it's equally hard to imagine someone with a professional theatre career using the word "casted" instead of "cast". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as self-promotion. (Use of "casted" probably because he's German.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This seems very dubious. Agree with above. - Triviaa 21:39, 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 G1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canee

Non-notable neologism. Creator's username is suspicious. Ghits aren't relevant. Contested prod. MER-C 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the word is useless, if you don't wanna say God, just say "bless you" --WikiSlasher 14:05, 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 - no compelling evidence provided that it meets WP:SOFTWARE. No reason it can't be recreated if such evidence comes to light. Yomangani^talk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smokeping

Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why do you think this is non-notable software? O.K. 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Both the proposed deletion notice and the above nomination are poor, and should have linked to WP:SOFTWARE at the very least. Uncle G 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per this. Jcam 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See how it works Global Latency Graphs... O.K. 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Article fails to assert notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. This is just a stub. Hope somebody will improve this. Written by the same author, smokeping is not less relevant than MRTG.
• Delete as per nom. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a software directory Bwithh 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Counterargument -- Wikipedia is not a list of individuals either, however people keep writing articles about other people all the time... O.K. 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: and we try to delete as many of them that aren't notable as possible. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that the article itself needs significant improvment, but the smokeping is not less notable than a network analysis and management tool MRTG, for example. Why do you insist deleteng just one of these related articles? O.K. 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while it needs work, Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge. This keeps wikipedia accurate. Today, everyone wants an article deleted. Uncle Kitia 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm fairly new here, but I'm curious why you bolded Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge.
  Which policy exactly states that? I see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on the What Wikipedia is not page, with That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as part of the section. As the article is written now...I see a possible copyvio, but no assertion of notability. --Onorem 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment knowledge and information are different things. O.K. 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That they are, and which category does Smokeping fall into? Please explain your reasoning. Either way, I still don't see a policy that says, "Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge." Please note that I haven't voted to delete. I don't feel I know enough about the product. I was only making an observation about Uncle Kitia's comment.--Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm new too0, but don't you think that that poor African child should be aware of smokekeeping? Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, not beingmade smaller. Uncle Kitia 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What poor African child? It may be true that Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, but that doesn't mean that every article written should be a part of it. I could write an article about the items on my desk. Is that knowledge? Does that belong? --Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Surprised! What kind of evidence do you need? Just some time ago Jcam has pointed out that smokeping is a part of Debian distribution. The software is notable, however the stub I inserted need significant work to become an article. Which one is more notable a screwdriver or hammer? The same applies with network tools. When MRTG or RRDtool are notable enough to be included, why would you say this particular tool is less notable? O.K. 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Pleas of "You can't delete X when Y has an article" are generally discouraged. Each article has to assert its own notability and provide sources. Vic sinclair 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Notability evidence by Brainboost -- What is Smokeping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.196.37.76 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. WP:Notability, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOT Article does not assert notability for this piece software, wikipedia isnt a listing of software programs. MidgleyDJ 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Still asserts no notability, no indication of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Sandstein 09:11, 14 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 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory

This is a bollocks-ridden "fringe theory". It has not been published in any reliable sources — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (Medical Hypotheses particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page [27]). It also fails notability policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is original research as well. Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.

Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.Byrgenwulf 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Update The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, here. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a violation of all the policies mentioned in the nomination. I suspect this article violates WP:VAIN as well: it was created by an IP, 24.185.23.19 (talk • contribs), who also edited New York Law School last April. According to Huping Hu (the article on the inventor of this "theory"), Hu attended that school in the 1990s. Anville 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Anville. Note that this was deleted in November 2004, which looks to be before the deletion log started, but see Special:Undelete/Spin-Mediated_Consciousness_Theory and request for investigation about the same IP. I've left a note for user:Ancheta Wis, who seems to be the one requesting deletion back then and appears to still be active. Thryduulf 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Good detective work. The first link you posted only works for admins, it appears, but the discovery is nonetheless interesting. Anville 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, Special:Undelete is an admin-only page. I should have noted that, sorry. Thryduulf 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • From the old manual deletion log:
    • 15:16, 26 Nov 2004 DropDeadGorgias deleted Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory
  • Uncle G 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tempshill 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, especially WP:BOLLOCKS. --Pjacobi 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Huping Hu. This piece was initially written by me when Wikipedia was in its infant stage back in 2004 as a way to introduce our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory because someone cited our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory in the Consciousness and, I believe, quantum mind entry. Please be advised that Anville's statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous. Our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory speaks for itself and if it was added or edited within quantum mind and spin the purpose was related to relevancy not vanity. May GOD bless Wikipedia and its participants so that it may stay useful, innovative, diverse and informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.197.56 (talk • contribs).

Looks like you are claiming that you are Huping Hu and also that you are the author of the two articles. Is that correct? If so I add WP:NPOV to my vote. And 72.89.197.56 (talk • contribs), please review WP:NLT and note that making legal threats in the Wikipedia is gravely frowned upon.---CH 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:BOLLOCKS. This article reads like pure pseudoscientific newagery; there is a bit about (poorly described) physical background but no indication of how spin states are supposed to generate conciouness, so the article completely fails in its mission of even describing the alleged "theory". NeuroQuantology?!! Is this yet another crankjournal? Sheesh! Can we consolidate this AfD with the biography? I agree with User:Anville that even a cursory examination raises the issue of WP:VAIN. ---CH 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We had an article on NeuroQuantology at some point, but it met a justly deserved fate (PRODed, I believe, not AfD). A Google Scholar search on that journal was quite illuminating, as was a perusal of its website. . . but that's not really a topic germane to this discussion. Anville 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. linas 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep!* No current theory of consciousness will be the correct one. Or even close to the correct one. They will all verge on scientism. But, based upon this article in Wikipedia, this Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (SMCT) looks like the best one we've got so far. Please don't discourage serious attempts at the hard problem of consciousness by immediately deleting every theory which is proposed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.66.41 (talk • contribs). — 68.81.66.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete No evidence of notability; the theory is a bollocks-ridden fringe theory whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. John Baez 04:18, 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 speedy delete as either vandalism or an advert for a company that would require practically a complete overhaul in order to make an article. Given that the creator of the article, berf (talk • contribs), has given us such silliness as Berf and Everett Lobster, both of which were silly vandalism, it is highly probable that a one-sentence article on a company with no supporting citations and only a borough name to go on for context is simply more of the same. I strongly suspect, given prior deleted edits (which I won't provide specifics of because they are personally identifying), that the author has just invented this company, and even if it were real this would be self-promotion. Uncle G 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berf art

Is it advertsing or vanity? Also does not meet WP:CORP or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per new criteria G11, also has a huge image that should go too. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme delete including image so awful it made me... berf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an obvious advertisement without even the slightest claim of notability. AdamBiswanger1 15:30, 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 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachid Matta

Non Notable , no peer reviewed publications referenced in article. JRSP 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Storkk 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A Google search turns up a couple of potential sources ([28], [29]), but these really don't provide enough context to sustain an article. It seems that the "proof" may be well-founded (if it were, I'd think wed have heard more about such a long-standing problem). The viewpoint of the proof seems to be held only by the subject of the article, and so mentioning it in Euclidean geometry would violate WP:NPOV. Therefore, I don't think this article or any of its content is salvageable. — TKD::Talk 23:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:49, 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 No consensus Yomangani^talk 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Min Zhou

Tagged A7 but contested, so bringing to AfD. No particular evidence of passing the professor test. Guy 14:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete It's not difficult to pass the professor test, but I don't think this woman does. AdamBiswanger1 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If her contribution to the concept of social capital is sufficiently notable, it might be argued that info about that contribution should be merged into social capital per WP:PROF#Caveats. But her contribution is already mentioned there. I would leave it up to the editors of social capital whether the mention of her contribution should be expanded. Pan Dan 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The claims in the article suggest sufficient notability and there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt them. Deli nk 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't see any claims that meet WP:BIO and more importantly, their is a lack of verifiable information here.--Isotope23 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.No peer reviewed journal article cited in article.Edison 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Deli nk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable independent sources to attest to her meeting any criterion of WP:PROF. Sandstein 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, whoop, an award-winning [30] and peer-honored [31] woman academic scorned by Wikipedia as less notable than a working whore who has been given a "year's best blowjob" award by two dozen guys who watch porn all day and blog about it [and that's all that WP:PORN requires for notability]. Sick, pathetic, disgusting. VivianDarkbloom 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Just a suggestion, if you have such a problem with WP:PORN BIO (which isn't even policy or guideline... it's a nonbinding proposal which has no real bearing on anything), there is a whole discussion page you can register your disgust on.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and please do nominate for deletion as many porn "stars" for whom there is no verifiable independent data as you can find. I'll be the one advocating Delete. Guy 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails the professor test and reads like vanity. Guy 09:27, 13 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 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkleboi

Advert for non-notable podcast. -- RHaworth 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 43,000 odd Google hits, though. None of them, however seem to be from a serious, authoritative website. AdamBiswanger1 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is not an advert for what you may call a "Non-Notable" podcast, it's appearance on wikipedia acts to provide listeners old and new with information on how it all began. Twinkleboi was one of the first gay voices of UK podcasting to make an impact in the USA, and to this day, is a much loved part of the pod-o-sphere—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.14.68 (talk • contribs).
• Twinkleboi was one of the first podcasts I ever subscribed to, and has been an interesting, informative and humourous link to the Mother Country for me. His show provides a valuable resource to young Gay people in not only the UK, but around the world. The name Twinkleboi is synonomous with gay UK podcasting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottsworld (talk • contribs).
• Delete no assertion of notability, close to the expanded A7. Eluchil404 08:18, 11 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jade on neighbours

Non-notable bit of fan cruft. -- RHaworth 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Oh no ya don't. AdamBiswanger1 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total fancruft, possibly verifiable, but not notable. --Mnemeson 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete There are far less notable entries on Wikipedia than this one. It'll hardly become notable if it's deleted. The "unencyclopedic" entry is the only real valid point here, and yet this could be changed with a cleanup - many likewise events are noted on Wikipedia, numerous of them on celebrity biographies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.246.31 (talk • contribs).

*Don't Delete (duplicate !vote by 155.143.246.31) "Oh no ya don't"? What is this supposed to mean? This comment seems vindictive and/or malicious.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.246.31 (talk • contribs).

• Comment - hi there, 155.143.246.31. Wikipedia is a place to document things that are notable, not a place to put things in order to make them well enough known that they are notable. Please read our guidelines on WP:Notability, and WP:NOT to see what should and shouldn't go in. --Mnemeson 14:33, 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IK Makkabi Stockholm

Non-notable minor amateur football club playing in level 8 of the Swedish football pyramid. As a comparison, English football clubs are only considered notable if playing in level 10 or above, and England has about five times more players than Sweden. – Elisson • Talk 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wrong, English clubs are listed even at levels 11 and twelve (The 61 F.C. (Luton)). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and resource for information. NYC2TLV 07:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to know that there are clubs that have either been playing at a higher level, or that have not been AfDed. That is no reason for this article to be kept. See WP:CORP, clubs playing at level 11 or higher need to be notable in other ways than playing in their league. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes. Wikipedia is a resource for information, yes. What support does that give to keep this article? Please read WP:N. – Elisson • Talk 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the articles creator and disagree with this deletion because this club is not just a minor league football club but also an establishment that was crucial in the development of the Maccabi World Union in Sweden as well as an outlet and part of history of the Jews in Sweden. I can understand that this isn't so obvious based on the little information that was posted on the page. – NYC2TLV • Talk 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't see how this club is an important part of the history of Jews in Sweden. Care to explain? – Elisson • Talk 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Give us some WP:RS. Punkmorten 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: See also KSC Maccabi Antwerp, Sport Club Maccabi Bruxelles, TuS Maccabi e.V. Düsseldorf, TuS Bar Kochba Nürnberg and Maccabi Paris. All seem equally non-notable. Punkmorten 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. Should show something like newspaper articles to document importance.Edison 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In accordance with much of football's significance worldwide, this club's notability is cultural rather than sporting. DublinDilettante 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In what way is this club notable in a cultural way? There are tens of other "ethnic" clubs in Stockholm alone. What makes this so special compared to those? Or in fact, special in a cultural way compared to any other football club at level 8? – Elisson • T • C • 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's notable as a vestigial of a cultural phenomenon (the Jewish sports club) which is almost extinct in Europe (unlike other "ethnic" sporting associations.) See http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/jewish-ww.html#Sweden DublinDilettante 20:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What you try to say is "it is notable because it is Jewish"? I still can't see that. – Elisson • T • C • 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Listify/merge to list of Maccabi sports teams or something like that. Punkmorten 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, regardless of other peoples comments, these clubs are the pinnacle of developement for the Maccabiah and are historically important members of Jewish society in the diaspora. SpeechFreedom 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still no source whatsoever that this particular club has been notable in the Swedish Jewish community in any way. To the closing admin, note that this user has exactly zero edits since late June, until this AfD. – Elisson • T • C • 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands the article does not assert the club's claim to notability. Qwghlm 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Well below the bar for notability of football clubs, fails WP:V. Oldelpaso 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per reasons above. HornetMike 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - far too far down the food chain to be notable. BTW Has someone opened the sock drawer? BlueValour 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if we have minor-league baseball teams (which we do, and definitely should), why not minor league soccer teams? Especially if they have a cultural importance. -Patstuart 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We have plenty of articles on teams in minor leagues (take a look at some of the football club categories), but generally not this minor. This club plays in the eighth level of Swedish football, way way down from the professional level. The article Swedish football league system lists leagues down to level 5, with 28 teams playing at level 3, 72 teams at level 4 and 144 at level 5. Hundreds if not thousands of Swedish teams play at a higher level. Oldelpaso 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Around 2000 teams play at the same level or a higher level than this club. – Elisson • T • C • 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - reason as per Qwghlm, above --MLD 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Jewishness alone does not equal notability. As the club is non-notable in every other way the article should go. aLii 17:49, 13 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SK Hakoah Malmö

Non-notable minor amateur football club playing in level 8 of the Swedish football pyramid. As a comparison, English football clubs are only considered notable if playing in level 10 or above, and England has about five times more players than Sweden. – Elisson • Talk 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Could you provide a link that confirms them playing at level 8, since one is not found in the article? Punkmorten 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Swedish FA - Division 6 table, Division 6 in this case means level 8 as the Swedish league system starts with Allsvenskan, Superettan, and then Division 1. It should also be noted that there are 6 fourth level leagues, 12 fifth level leagues, ≈30 sixth level leagues, ≈50 seventh level leagues and then ≈70 eight level leagues... – Elisson • Talk 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article. The club is an important part of the history of the Jews in Sweden and is as well a social club that doesn't just have an amateur football club. Part of the Maccabi World Union it is a good resource to find information on such clubs history, see SC Hakoah Wien for instance. Please don't delete this article. Why do you think it is in the Maccabi category? So we wouldn't go through this with our clubs. This is also a great resource for people who are looking for information on them when most information is in Swedish. NYC2TLV 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't see how this club is an important part of the history of Jews in Sweden. Care to explain? And being a social club doesn't make it notable. And being part of a category does also not make it notable. And the article being in English when most information on the club is in Swedish does also not make it notable. – Elisson • Talk 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. More reliable sources needed to show the importance. Edison 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in its own write, Jewish clubs are historically important to their communities and the shaping of these communities in the diaspora. Each on has a specific geography and importance to the developement of each community. I would even go as far to suggest that the entire hierarchy of Swedish football (every club listed) be allowed to be on Wiki since they are difficult to find information about them/their backgrounds and histories.SpeechFreedom 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still no source whatsoever that this particular club has been notable in the Swedish Jewish community in any way. And no, not every damn club in the Swedish football system should have an article on Wikipedia. That'd be madness. To the closing admin, note that this user has exactly zero edits since late June, until this AfD. – Elisson • T • C • 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands the article does not assert the club's claim to notability. Qwghlm 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Several divisions below the professional level, fails WP:V. Oldelpaso 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per reasons above. Also there is speculation in past Afds that the two supporters of this article, SpeechFreedom and NYC2TLV are the same person. HornetMike 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - far too far down the food chain to be notable. BlueValour 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - reason as per Qwghlm, above --MLD 12:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Jewishness alone does not equal notability. As the club is non-notable in every other way the article should go. aLii 17:50, 13 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 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistress Yvette

I will take on this project and straighten out the form issues on the page, it will just take some time. I'm still trying to figure out how to use the system. Arguement: Whether this gal is now 50 years old or not has nothing to do with the viability of her contributions to the adult industry for 25 years. Her porn contributions are mostly in the fetish arena, YES. This isnt as main stream as some others, but still notable in that market nitch. She's very well known in the BDSM community. It isnt just realing out porn videos as much as a LIFE spent entertaining men in most all arenas of adult entertainment. Have you ever popped into a Gentlemen's Club and met her over her 25 years? She's retiring at the end of 2006. This article is not self promotion of Ms Wilde however she provided information to the writer. I personally feel this just marks her place in history. How many of you have a Paradise Galleries doll made of you? This didn't happen "just because" RBFAST

Article as it stands right now does make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. This is arguably a Vanity one and possibly one that is Autobiographical, given that the the bulks of the edits to this article was done by User:Yvette38dd, who has not contributed to any other articles. Tabercil 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. WP:PORN BIO isn't an accepted guideline, but if it were, the article wouldn't pass that either as written. A leather-clad porn model who's old enough to be my grandmother.... ah, the things I go through for the good of wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:49, 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 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Student Association

Spammy article for a non-notable Student organisation, whose non-porcine contents have been merged with RWTH Aachen. Delete this and its fork PSA RWTH per precedent of other student societies viz:Warwick University, York University. Ohconfucius 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No references whatever. No evidence of notability.Edison 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - useless article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:57, 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. W.marsh 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voytek Kochanek (audio engineer)

notability and vanity Johnbrownsbody 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• references have been added. verbiage has been edited to avoid vanity.--Tommiwarner 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc." Guyanakoolaid 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hang on. The subject of this article is not 'indiscriminate'. This producer has made a significant and noteworthy impact on the music business by working with many high-profile artists. To substantiate notability:

1. added verifiable discography

2. added verifiable production credits—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommiwarner (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, a google search of 'Voytek Kochanek' returns 85+ credible hits for industry associated credits including mixing, mastering, engineering, production, etc. Many of these credits directly relate his work with high-profile artists, professional studios, large labels, etc... --TommiW 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. Working with notable people does not make you notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hang on Your assertion is absurd. What makes Mutt Lange or Bob Rock notable? I'll tell you what makes them notable; the fact they engineered and produced 'notable' people, which is completely contrary to your comment. Voytek Kochanek is an industry veteran, has worked for several major studios, and works with platinum selling artists every single day.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittyw (talk • contribs) .
• Do Not Delete per WP:N: I have posted this subject's 'All Music Guide' discography which clearly establishes notability. Lets please move on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grammy2b (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Wooldridge

The article currently violates WP:BIO (being a relative of notable people is a consideration for notability), and WP:V (from what I see in Google I can't find an article from a third-party reliable source about her specifically - lot of brief mentions, but not a substantial article). I don't care whether she's virtually a lock-in (per Rebecca's comments on the talk page) and the article will be recreated in six months, once she's a candidate (that's predicting the future aka crystal ball); rewrite the article in six months. It seems a little harsh, but I don't want Wikipedia turning into a election platform, and it looks like that's exactly what happened (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gymer). ColourBurst 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unelected candidates in non-national races don't seem notable enough to me. Deli nk 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the point of deleting this article now only to definitely have to recreate it later? Unlike Gymer, Wooldridge is a virtual certainty to be elected. Rebecca 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Having a neutral point of view. Like I said, arbitrarily deciding the outcome of an election isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, even if it is guaranteed (of which we only have your word. See WP:V, which this article also doesn't meet.) ColourBurst 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The page isn't here to arbitrarily decide the outcome of an election. It's here because she's notable, on the basis that she will, pending a major upset that no poll I've seen has so far predicted, enter parliament in a matter of months. It may be unsourced at present, but it's fairly clearly verifiable - do some research before complaining. Rebecca 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If her notability only hinges on the election outcome, then we're predicting she'll win (since candidates are not notable, whereas elected officials are). If she's notable by some other criteria in WP:BIO, then fine, she stays. However, the onus is on you to get the sources required, since you're arguing to keep the article. ColourBurst 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• . I know Mary Wooldridge and she will meet WP:BIO if she is elected to the Victorian parliament. A search of EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database comes up with some mentions of her name. However, it might not be enough to get her over the line at the moment. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Political candidates are not notable until they get elected. She has not been elected yet. Seems very clear-cut to me. Lankiveil 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
  • What on earth is the purpose of deleting an article now when we know we will have to recreate it in less than a month and it has perfectly verifiable content? This is deletionism gone silly. Rebecca 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rebecca. The difference bewteen Wooldridge and Gymer is that Wooldridge will likely be elected, where as Gymer has no chance. Teiresias84 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not meet WP:BIO (notability) or WP:V (Verifiability) guidelines. The application of these criteria should be consistent in Wikipedia. The article is furthering the profile of a political candidate while the article of a peer candidate (Chris Gymer) has just been deleted. Also note that she is running in a marginal seat (Doncaster), and may not be elected. If she is, an article would be warranted. --Peter Campbell 03:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this supposed to be revenge for the Gymer deletion? Gymer had no chance of being elected, whereas Wooldridge is a virtual-certainty. The article would be easily verifiable if anyone actually bothered to do so, and will undoubtedly be recreated in exactly this state in three weeks time if it is deleted now. This is plainly silly. Rebecca 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, this is not revenge. If this was a real motive I would have nominated this article for deletion, and you will recall that I chose not to. I don't think it is silly to apply policy and guidelines in a consistent manner - I think this is just good process, and quite straightforward. Conversely, I don't think that bending or interpreting guidelines based on perceptions about what may happen in the future is good practice or fair. --Peter Campbell 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We're not bending anything. Deleting a page now, only to have to definitely recreate exactly the same article in exactly the same state is the very definition of stupidity. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is stupid at all, so let's agree to differ. I have copyedited the content to [32] and will reinstate the article if it is deleted and she gets elected. However, it does need more references and content to improve it from being an electioneering puff piece. Peter Campbell 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • What is the point of taking it off the site when it has potential readers? Delete it after the election if the unlikely occurs and she actually loses. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup This article currently only cites self-published works (the candidate's web site, and the liberal party web site). This does not conform with wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Andjam 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She gets a page when she gets elected, not as part of her election campaign. Besides, she is not a shoo-in. The margin in her seat is only a couple of percent, and she replaces a prominent and long-serving member.--Michael Johnson 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is an election within 45 days in Victoria. If this article is kept, then from a NPOV I would think that all candidates should be allowed an article. The problem is that a Wiki entry will come up in a Google search, and may give the impression that one candidate is "more notable" than others. The question we should be asking, is strip the article of any mention of her standing for Parliament, and is she notable enough? And BTW I would have voted for the Gymer deletion, too. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with giving all candidates pages, but I'm clearly in the minority on that one. What I do take serious objection to, is deleting a page on someone who is almost definitely going to win, as deleting a page when one knows that one will definitely have to recreate it in three weeks is madness. And her imminent entry into parliament is the reason why she is notable, so excluding that from the rationale would be rather illogical. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Doncaster would take a swing of 0.8% to fall to the Labor party. Given that long-term members are normally supposed to have a personal vote of 1 to 2%, I'd be working hard for her right now, because if everything else stays the same, she is gone. So no, it is not a sure thing. As has been said before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As for all candidates having articles, well perhaps you are right, but that is not the status quo on Wikipedia right now. BTW, it would be nothing to copy the edit page on the article and store it on your computer for a few weeks. --Michael Johnson 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Except that every single poll I've seen in recent months has showed a swing to the Liberal Party, which makes Wooldridge's victory a virtual certainty. Having to take the article off the site for three weeks is stupid - in the unlikely event that she loses, delete the article then. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Rebecca, the article is here because the subject is notable. RFerreira 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Peter, I don't find your suggestion very satisfactory because the history will be lost, violating the GFDL. The best option is to keep the article and delete it after the election if need be. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment But as previously noted, this gives her some electoral advantage over other candidates - which is pretty clearly the intent of the article. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Peter Campbell 13:42, 11 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 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murder Rate

Straight copy of data from another source, not a copyvio, but not useful. Not an article. Is an orphan. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.It is a straight copy but so are all the other lists (ie: gdp/flags ext). However I have changed the stats from # per 1000 to # per 100,000. I feel it is more conceptually realistic when dealing with murder rates.

  I think it is quite relevant as the murder rate of both the world and individual countries is likely to be of interest to people (I know it was to me since I was looking for it before starting this article) and yes it does have links from it.

  Also I would love to see more details added to it (maybe some statistics on whether the murder rate is rising or falling). I might do that myself in the next couple of days. --Maximg 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's as useful as List of countries by death rate is (and indeed as List of countries by suicide rate is), and it's sourced to a UN survey. It should of course be at List of countries by murder rate, per our Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions. Uncle G 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Expand/Cleanup Like Maximg, I once looked for some data on international murder rates on Wikipedia, but I came up empty at the time. While I think this article is far too bare-bones to be sufficient, I'd like to see a decent article on this subject expanded out of the bare data. -Markeer 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're probably looking for Murder#Murder_demographics. Uncle G 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but if you look you'll note the link at the top of that section leads back to the article currently being considered for AfD (i.e., it redirects to Murder Rate -Markeer 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but Rename to List of countries by murder rate thus wiping the redirect. The problem is this is a worthless article (because there is no prose content) but a valuable list so make the name fit the content and be done with it. --Richard 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  ok give me a couple of hours and ill try and expand it into a larger article... --Maximg 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that the "article" starts by saying "This is a list..." and then provides a list. So, if it is a list, then rename the title to indicate that it is a list. A good article about murder rate might talk about comparisons of murder rates in different countries and what causes the differences (longer jail sentences, death penalty, strong law enforcement, education, poverty, etc.). Also a discussion of how murder rate data is collected and whether there are methodological issues in collection techniques that make it difficult to compare murder rate data across countries. Etc., etc., etc.

--Richard 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• KeepBut get some more up to date stats. Iraq isn't even in the list, with 2000 cops a year murdered and dozens of people murdered a day in Baghdad alone.Edison 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand because yes, the article needs more up to date stats on it. In the eight to six years since this report was researched and subsequently published, some rates have fallen and risen, sometimes significantly (Colombia wouldn't top the list if the same survey were made in 2005/2006, though it'd still be high). The list itself can stay, if necessary, but later and current trends should be reflected somehow. The list remains a good resource for showing what murder rates were like half a decade ago, but it's not that accurate today. Juancarlos2004 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Richard. Eluchil404 08:24, 11 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purvis Parker and Quadrevion Henning

Whilst I am very sorry these boys drownned, this seems to be little more than a footnote in local history. There is no ongoing investigation, no widespread media interest and no controversy surrounding the tragic accident, which unfortuntely is all too common worldwide Jackyd101 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As a Milwaukeean I must agree that this was only of local interest. Sulfur 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to withhold my decision for now as I'm curious what others' thoughts are. The story made it to the AP news wire and CNN, so maybe it was one of those epic "local boy trapped in the well" stories on a smaller scale. Sulfur 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If there was sourcing to the news reports and so on, I figure it would be keepable. Edward Wakelin 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Newsorthy, but not encyclopedia material. Deli nk 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial to everyone who died in a tragic accident.Edison 20:58, 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 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Build a website

Delete: The page is unencyclopediac. It has all the earmarks of a schoolkid's homework assignment. Orphan. No substantive work. Poorly written. Hu 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopaedic and original research.--Húsönd 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mnemeson 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Before anyone says the obvious, Wikibooks already has Web Hosting, Web Development, Web Design, How To Build and Run a Free Online Games Website, Authoring Webpages, and a whole bookshelf of books on web server tools. It has no need of this. Uncle G 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic tutorial. Prolog 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Unencyclopedic" is very vague when we have a criteria in The WP:NOT an instruction manual criteria. It's also original research and probably WP:NFT. ColourBurst 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. JubalHarshaw 20:27, 10 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cops (band)

This was tagged as CSD, but I believe it asserts notability. AfD'ing to get more input. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral not enough sources, but apparently they've released an album and appeared with the Distillers and Blondie. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but even if this was verifiable, there's a huge difference between "appeared with" and "toured with". Every stop the Warped Tour makes sees the performances of about 15 local bands- do all those bands become notable because they "appeared with Green Day"? -- Kicking222 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Why would you delete this article? this is one of my favorite bands!, the info here seems to check out. — 203.211.66.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The info is definitely credible and verifiable. They are also my favourite band! Don't delete it! — 220.245.83.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV article about a non-notable band. None of the reviews of their music come from reliable sources. They've released exactly one full-length album, and it was on a non-notable label. Having the Libertines' guitarist say he likes you does not make you significant. -- Kicking222 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:59, 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bukana

Not notable, perhaps vanity. See talk page-- I wish I'd read it before cleaning the thing up. Apparently this was a deletion that went awry back in October, 2005. User:Jwanders indicates intent to delete on the talk page. Only about 622 unique google hits. They have only one album on a not-notable label after 8 years of finding themselves.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. Glad they found themselves.Edison 21:00, 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 - Yomangani^talk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparent Reality Simulation

tagged as copyvio, but author of the web site is the author of the article and releases under GFDL. Strong smell of vanity, no evidence of importance as yet. Guy 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Very Weak Keep But Definite Rewrite If Kept Article is verifiable and reports cited suggest that it may be notable, though it does seem dubious at best. The copied text does however reak of vanity, so it requires a rewrite if it's kept. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, definitely rewrite. Not only is the article written from a vanity position, it's also confusingly written (or I'm just out of it today, which is also a definite possibility).Edward Wakelin 17:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important new technology, has references to prove it. The concept is not a simple one, but that is true of lots of new technology. Do not delete just because you are confused after reading it.. Ask a question on the discussion page, and maybe the creator of the article will add clearer explanation of what confuses you.Edison 21:03, 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 redirected - original nom not calling for a delete, so just BOLDly redirecting. – Chacor 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic Hurricane Names

Redundant, theres already a List of tropical cyclone names article. Delete- Storm05 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of named tropical cyclones. – Chacor 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you say so, then i change my vote to Redirect. Storm05 16:18, 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 - Yomangani^talk 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of trivia from Pulp Fiction

A whole article about trivia isn't needed at all. Per WP:TRIVIA, and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, this page doesn't belong. RobJ1981 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pulp Fiction invites so much trivia (I've indulged in an edit or two myself) that it almost seems like this article should exist as an intentional stopping point on the way for these tidbits headed towards removal. Metaphorically send all the trivia to this article, slam the door shut, ignore any screams you hear. - Richfife 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful and notable back into the original article. Note that WP:TRIVIA does not prohibit trivia sections in articles. What needs to be done is the most important/notable trivia needs to be picked out and, if possible, integrated into the main article text. 23skidoo 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Agree with 23skidoo. Can't decipher Richfife's comments. Please rewrite in clear English.Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I could tell you what I meant, but then I'd have to kill you. - Richfife 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Reply I assume, then, that your Delete statement is not to be taken seriously. Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia sections are bad enough in the main articles, never mind giving them separate ones. Integrate and rewrite the most encyclpaedic points into the article, in context, and shoot the rest down in a big lexical blood bath. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this "list" was obviously ripped off from the main article with hope to keep the main text clean. Merge it and damage the main text, delete it and the cruft will start to grow in the main article immediatelly. See Category:In popular culture for working examples how to effectively deal with cruft in current structure of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and consistently remove the trivia from this section. I don't see how "people are going to add it" is a reason to let it stay on site so much as a reason to patrol the main article and ensure it stays clean. GassyGuy 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A lot of this material is available at IMDB's trivia page and doesn't fit in an encyclopedia. Interesting read though.
• Merge: Some of this is relevant to the main page,though a lot of it is garbage.Desdinova 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete; trivia = trivial = unencyclopedic. I'd suggest merging any relevant information into Pulp Fiction (film), but none of it is referenced. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial Delete! Widefox 01:48, 15 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. -- Merope ^Talk 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denise Vasi

This article fails WP:BIO. At best, there appears to be one newsworthy event she has been involved in -- she has been rumored to date Russell Simmons. I don't see anything else in the sampling of the 770 search engine hits. If she were in fact dating Simmons (which does not appear to have been confirmed), that would not render her notable -- we don't create articles on the dates of the rich and famous here. CSD declined despte no assertion of notability in the article. Erechtheus 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no notability asserted. retagged. You cannot decline speedy deletion on the grounds of an unspecified external search allegedly demonstrating unspecified notablity. Thryduulf 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:57, 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 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huping Hu

Biography of a "biophysicist and attorney in private practice". Liberally seasoned with "citation needed" tags, this article fails to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) proposal (not to mention notability practice in general) and is almost certainly a vanity piece. The anon IP who created it, 24.185.23.19 (talk • contribs), also edited New York Law School, which Hu apparently attended, as well as spamming Consciousness, Spin and Quantum mind with Hu's Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (currently also up for deletion). Anville 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Good work rooting him out. Byrgenwulf 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tempshill 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Huping Hu. This piece was initially written by me when Wikipedia was in its infant stage back in 2004 as a way to introduce our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and its originator, me, because someone cited our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory in the Consciousness and, I believe, quantum mind entry. Of course, I'm not notable and vanity is last thing I have in mind. I'm perfect happy with my life and work without any entry to Wikipedia. Please be advised that Anville's statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous. Our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory speaks for itself and if it was added or edited within quantum mind and spin the purpose was related to relevancy not vanity. May GOD bless Wikipedia and its participants so that it may stay useful, innovative, diverse and informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.197.56 (talk • contribs).

Warning: your statement "Please be advised that Anville's statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous" is in clear violation of WP:NLT. ---CH 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence that our anon is indeed Huping Hu:

The dyn.optonline.net anon used 24.185.23.19 (talk • contribs) from 27 November 2004 to 12 April 2005; geolocated Brooklyn, NY

The nycmny.east.verizon.net anon used 72.89.197.56 (talk • contribs) which is so far a single use account; apparently geolocated in NYC area; note that East Village, Manhattan is near NYU.

Make of this what you will.---CH 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seems to be a clear case of WP:VAIN. Good work, Anville, Thryduulf, and UncleG! ---CH 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete linas 04:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MySource Matrix

nn software--Dsfbs 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. How is this software not notable but all other CMS's on the list of CMS's are? Has Dsfbs got something against this piece of software, or is there actually a good reason/precedent for deletion?--Gsherwood 07:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing in the article to say why it is notable; no third-party coverage cited. Thryduulf 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 21:04, 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 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandname.com

spam--Dsfbs 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has been mentioned by the media (e.g. [33]) so it has the potential to become more than spam. --Richmeister 15:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)