Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 24

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrot rot

Scrot rot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dubious slang term. Would redirect to Jock itch but article makes no mention of fungal infection which is principal in that syndrome. Listing for community input. No Vote exolon 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable neologism. Only a handful of GHits outside of slang dictionaries like Urban Dictionary. --Haemo 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable and written in an informal tone--$UIT 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism. Send it back to the junior high school locker room where it belongs. Lankiveil 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per Haemo. NN. Scienter 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Resolute 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it be urban slang, and a neologism. Realkyhick 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT#DICT for WP:NEO--I already forgot 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely unnecessary and badly written. -- Wenli 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NEO TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jock itch, I can imagine someone searching on this. - Iridescenti 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO], unsourced, plus WP:NOT#DIC. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as I understand it this is the UK term for Jock Itch. So redirect at least. A clear example of systematic bias. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In which case, it's still a dicdef and belongs on Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect this since there are over a thousand hits on google and a redirect could be usefull for people who are searching for the term.[1] Mr. Berry 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as the term may be used, but this article won't be. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Iridescenti. it seems entirely appropriate to redirect to the subject that the term refers to. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to jock itch. Dicdef, and of dubious notability to boot. Herostratus 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of computer and video games not released in the USA

List of computer and video games not released in the USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't apparently 'indescriminate information', and this list is pretty much that. It would be near impossible to complete (there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA), especially as the criteria is so broad that stuff like Animal Forest (the Japanese version of Animal Crossing, which was released in the US on the Gamecube) or alterernative versions of games like Kingdom Hearts 2 - Final Mix are included. FredOrAlive 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this would be positively innumerable, and unmanageable list. --Haemo 00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom.--$UIT 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No real use for list, and it would be HUGE! -- Theshoestore 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vaguely defined lists of things that have happened are bad enough, ones about things that haven't happened are even worse. Lankiveil 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Scienter 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Japan gets hundreds (if not thousands) of games not released outside of the country, not to mention the hundreds of shoveware crap released in Europe (like ANYTHING from Phoenix Games). TJ Spyke 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; unmaintainable, not really much of a point to this one. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible to maintain this- there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA! CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How could one possible properly maintain a list like this? Dump it. Realkyhick 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JALOUF. What defines "released" anyway? What if I bought it online from Japan and the UPS guy released it? --I already forgot 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable. Delete per WP:NOT. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:NOT#IINFO Orderinchaos78 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable. 23skidoo 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's unmaintainable, impractical, and not useful. -- Wenli 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - way too overbroad, could easily span 10,000 or more items if kept. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - keeping it would set a horrible precedent for a list for every other country. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While criteria for inclusion ought to be tightened up (and stated in the intro to the list), I find it hard to believe that this is "indiscriminate information". Clear criteria for inclusion can be formulated, and any vagueness is a cleanup issue in any case. The page serves a valuable indexing function for people interested in games without a US release. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. To some extent I agree with the last user. But in its current form, the list is unmanageable. There are a lot of noteable games not released in the U.S (and Europe too), but then some criterion for inclusion is needed.Dr bab 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this as the subject is nationalistically POV, in addition Computer and video games not released in the USA is not an article and there doesn't need to be a list for it. Mr. Berry 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list is unmaintainable, and as such, Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. --sunstar net^talk 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - entirely unmaintainable, and in pretty bad condition. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as US-centric and unnecessary. Punkmorten 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Proposal: I would like to propose that instead of maintaining such a problematic list as this, we simple create various region exclusive lists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.P.Gururaja Bhat

Dr.P.Gururaja Bhat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No prejudice to a keep if attribution can be found. --Dennisthe2 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as above, unless it acquires some sources. --Theshoestore 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, Apparently this chap wrote a book [2], which seems to have been cited in a few online essays. Notability established, in my opinion. Lankiveil 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Weak keep. Many relevant google hits, [3] however article needs a major expansion. Notable. Article is only a few days old, we should probably give it a bit more time. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I got only 7 unique G hits.[4] ----♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands now. If you can show more of these alleged sources, I might reconsider. Realkyhick 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or rename/move to P Gururaja Bhatt. Author of Studies in Tuluva history and culture, from the pre-historic times upto the modern and Antiquities of South Kanara. Assumming good faith in hopes of additional source from users familiar with India and its culture.--I already forgot 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Writing a book alone doesn't get you through WP:BIO, and the article still lacks viable references. Move to appropriate name if kept, of course. A Train ^{take the} 16:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not an article, no sources, writing a book isn't sufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Professors and historians are not rock stars or cricket players. Obviously, not everyone would have heard of them. Unless someone gets down to study Tulu history or maybe Karnataka history they might not come across this author. But for someone who is a student of these less glamorous subjects, Prof. Gururaja Bhat is certainly notable. A quick search on books.google.com and worldcat.org can throw light on his notability. For example, a search on books.google.com reveals that Rama Jois has used P. Gururaja Bhat's books as references in his own books. Now did somebody say, "Who the hell is Rama Jois?". Well, Rama Jois was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and later Governer of Chattisgarh. These are only the highest offices that he has held and needless to say he's held and holds several more. And where has he referred to P. Gururaja Bhat? Well in his book, "Legal and Constitutional History of India: Ancient, Judicial and Constitutional System" which is considered a most seminal and definitive work by students and scholars of the subject. Go to books.google.com, search for this book and then search the book for "gururaja bhat". If a Supreme Court judge who is himself a respected historian can refer to another author, then by implication, the other author is certainly no quack! btw, the book that M.Rama Jois has referred to is Gururaja Bhat's "Tuluva history and culture". Now that notability has been established, do a speedy keep and mark it as a stub. Sarvagnya 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added some refs and content to the article. A search with alternative spellings indicates that he was a notable historian who was an authority on Tulu-related stuff("Gururaja Bhatt", "Gururaja Bhat", "Gururaj Bhatt", and "Gururaj Bhat"). utcursch | talk 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Mailer diablo[5]. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decide band

Decide band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an article with no context (A1?). So tagged. The article contains nothing more than a list of records with release dates and the genre they play. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete because the article title is a typo. The records are by Deicide who already have an article. No point redirecting as its not a likely search term. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above comment by User:EliminatorJR. Lankiveil 04:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete per EliminatorJR. Tag has already been added. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy! Speedy! Speedy! No notability, no context, no nothing. Realkyhick 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as the article exsist under the correct spelling. See (Deicide (band)).--I already forgot

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pale (band)

The Pale (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Just about notable, I think - one album on a major label (A&M) and nationwide tours outside their own country (Ireland). I have cleaned up the article and added a few links, though they are hard to find, given bands with "the pale" in their name. Also not helping: this band, who are not the same one. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC, given that they've released a record on a major label and toured outside of Ireland. Lankiveil 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:MUSIC- released a record on a major label, toured outside Ireland, and a chart-single. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Major label, charted single, meets WP:MUSIC clearly. Realkyhick 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per user Lankiveil and CattleGirl. --I already forgot 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they meet WP:Music. They have an article here in another language Wikipedia.--Paloma Walker 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite - It seems like a complying article, but could use some rewriting. -- Wenli 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:Music; however, they are not the same band as Paloma Walker linked to on de.wiki -- Dragonbeast 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this subject is suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The band meet the criteria for recording artists on Wikipedia. However, a rewrite may well be needed. --sunstar net^talk 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be fixed, but notable enough. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a {{sofixit}} issue more than anything, so fix it. RFerreira 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Can we get some WP:SNOW in here? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - entirely notable per WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amphetamine in popular culture

Amphetamine in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article. Nothing but a list of every time this particular drug is mentioned in some obscure song or movie; plenty of OR and entries of questionable notability.

I am also nominating the following nearly identical pages for the same reason:

Benzedrine in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dextroamphetamine in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

— Krimpet (talk/review) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Most of these examples aren't even significant to the works in question. Croxley 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - per nom. Strongly oppose any suggestion that any of this stuff be merged into the articles on the various drugs. Otto4711 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per Otto4711. Scienter 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Indie Rock singer-songwriter Elliott Smith mentions Amphetamine use in a song titled "St. Ides Heaven" from his self titled album." You don't say? Some of these "in popular culture" articles are useful, but this certainly isn't one of them. Lankiveil 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete all. Listcruft, or listcrud, whatever. Realkyhick 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Biased Delete. Find most "In pop culture" list about as usuful as google add farms. This one is no exception. --I already forgot 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all anyone who cared would be looking on Google, not Wikipedia anyway. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and remove OR and entries of questionable notability.--DorisHノート 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just a list or uncyclopedic info Captain panda In vino veritas 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT --Mhking 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if Kept or Deleted definitely No merge. - Francis Tyers · 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although this is often the case for the "x in popular culture" articles, these are obviously hiding their true title which should be "stuff about drug x we don't want to keep in the main article but don't really want to delete because some editors will keep adding it back". Actually, I firmly believe that as the quality of articles grows, people will give more and more second thought about adding a trivial reference to their favorite drug user in an otherwise perfectly encyclopedic article. Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merged. kingboyk 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sajdah

Sajdah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Two dictionary definitions, complete with the strangest/funkiest looking redirect I've ever seen. kingboyk 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect There is an article about this issue:Sujud--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well go ahead and do it and the AFD can be withdrawn. The articles can't stay as they are though, as they're just one line definitions. --kingboyk 05:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it and we can move this AfD.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I wonder if that redirect was ever used, aside from the link above. Realkyhick 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment I redirected the first one but the second has remained. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• no vote, because while I am sure it is a relevant topic, it lacks sources.--Sefringle 10:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD should be closed.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim Sunday

Ibrahim Sunday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep African Player of the Year - notable. Added some sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If being named the best football player on an entire continent isn't notable, I don't know what is. But the article needs to be expanded. Realkyhick 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, but is currently a very short stub- can be well expanded. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.--I already forgot 10:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure what kind of reference the article needs, since it only states basic facts like date of birth, one former club and that the player won CAF player of the year award, which is a well-knwn fact. The article needs to be expanded though, unfortunately I haven't found any more information on the player so if anybody willing to help, that would be appreciated. None the less, once best football player in Africa definitely deserves a mention. User:BanRay
• Keep but rewrite - It's notable but badly written. -- Wenli 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons stated. --ChaChaFut
  • Comment:Entry has been copyedited and expanded. Please re-evaluate the deletion nomination based on its current status ---ChaChaFut 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep played in the Bundesliga, the top professional league in Germany and one of the strongest leagues in Europe if not the world, thereby satisfying the requirements of WP:BIO even without taking the African Footballer of the Year award into account.....ChrisTheDude 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Mr. Berry 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - subject played in a continental tournament, and won African Footballer of the Year, which make him very definitely notable. Being unreferenced alone is merely grounds for improvement and review, not deletion. Qwghlm 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Maria Schenkel

Andrea Maria Schenkel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, can't be verified. Realkyhick 06:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She is obviously the author of Tannod. Just need to give the article time for a German user to expand on the article. I don’t see why we need to delete articles about people from non native English speaking countries just because the refs are a little more difficult to dig up. Assuming good faith here.--I already forgot 10:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; notable author - but stubify until references can be found. A Train ^{take the} 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for her to be notable a third party has to say her book is important. (See WP:BIO Did it or she win any awards. Was it reviewed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Publisher's Weekly[6] shows her as #2 in the German bestseller list so she's notable enough that it's likely a German-speaker will expand the article. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --DorisHノート 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this person is suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The writer of a top bestseller in a major country is notable. --Charlene 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keiji Ozaki

Keiji Ozaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. --I already forgot 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep World champion in a major sport, with 2500 Google hits. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --DorisHノート 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears that references have been added. Dekimasuよ! 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And it is only fair to say that when nominated for deletion it was really unreferenced by any standard.DGG 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Harryboyles 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about an article that appeared in TV Guide. Non-notable, only references to it are in blogs or trivial sources. Incidentally, if people create articles I think they should at least name them accurately, rather than an interpretation of the original (compare the title to the actual TV Guide cover).

(Similar to yesterday's nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever). Croxley 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio, if not speedied then delete as indiscriminate and lacking notability. Otto4711 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep large Australian company --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Property Trust

General Property Trust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural listing, it was speedied without notification, which I disagree with, and hence restored it. However, I'm also not able to improve it beyond its present content, due to my lack of comprehension of the financial dailies and the like, although it *does* merit more as a large Australian corporate player - I created it as I was amazed it didn't have an article. The present version of the article is slightly better than the one that got speedied, but my main newspaper archive seems to have dropped AFR :(. I'll leave it for the community to decide what to do with it. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per my own reasoning above. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; attributable, NPOV, notable. Hesperian 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable Australian company with references in Google News [8] and Google News Archive see [9]

Possible speedy keep as the nominator wants to keep it and no-one has favoured deleting it.Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep notable company, with a profit after tax of $A1.384 billion for 2006 [10], I'm surprised your struggling to find information. Gnangarra 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's not information I'm struggling to find - I got 7900+ hits on Factiva at least 119 of which were in major Australian newspapers since November 2005 - it's comprehending them. I'm not a business person. :) Also the important stuff regarding Lend Lease and Stockland, and the history with Growth Equities Mutual during the 80s and early 90s, is not in there - it seems to be dead wood only now since AFR pulled most of its historical stuff out of Factiva :/ Orderinchaos78 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's a keeper, definitely. $A 1 billion plus is definitely notable. Might need some fleshing out, though. Realkyhick 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Lincoln

Jesus Lincoln (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. It seems to be an article about one joke made on one episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I can't find any reference to Jesus Lincoln anywhere else. Mysdaao 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete As nom says, just a punchline to a single joke. Jon Stewart makes up a silly name on TV and someone has to create an article about it? Jesus... Lincoln. Croxley 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not-notable and it isn't necessary to make an article about every single thing--$UIT 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Does every Jon Stewart joke deserve its own article? For the love of Jimbo, no! Realkyhick 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Kill - Delete - One person's idea of comic relief is not Wikipedia's idea of an article. Sfacets 11:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - pretty obviously useless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevRagnarok (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 March 2007.
• Delete per above. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Nonsense again. Artaxiad 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nail to a stick in a theater. 'nuff said. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of worship centers in Lake Charles, Louisiana

List of worship centers in Lake Charles, Louisiana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Croxley 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ISNOTYELLOWPAGES EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious violation of WP:NOT. Noroton 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, per all above. Not even close to being notable. If this is notable, so is the membership list of the Noon Rotary Club of Fungus Creek, Tennessee. Realkyhick 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At best, a directory entry and Wikipedia is not a directory. (Worship centre? What a phrase! How PC can you get?) Emeraude 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. -- Wenli 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP != YP. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A simple list of churches is not encyclopedic. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per statements made above. Does not belong on wiki.--Bryson 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was broken beyond repair. The page had been moved to an non-existent userpage; to clean all of this mess up, the page has been moved to a user subpage of the creator, and the four or so redirects along the way have been tagged for speedy deletion. As it is now a user subpage, it is pointless to continue this discussion here. If you want to nominate the user subpage for deletion, you may do so at MfD. Instead, I advise that we educate our creator how she can improve that would-be article to a status worthy of Wikipedia. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haruko Lisa Haruhara

Haruko Lisa Haruhara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not really sure what this is; it's pretty confusing, but it seems to be some kind of vanity article presented as fiction, created by a user with the same name as the article. Masamage 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I will make note of this article more clearly on what it's about. This is a tribute to Haruko. Please do not remove this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haruko Lisa Haruhara (talk • contribs).
  • Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). The actress for Haruko from FLCL was Mayumi Shintani, and the actress for Chibiusa from Sailor Moon was Kae Araki, so I am confused in general. --Masamage 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As I'm aware of this, this is not about the voice actor/actress. However, voice acter/actress name will be added as a part of improving this article. Please give me 24 hours improve the whole article. Any suggestions from you will be very much appreciated before editing/fixing. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haruko Lisa Haruhara (talk • contribs).
      • Like all AFDs, this discussion will go on for about a week. --Masamage 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fictional biography of a fictional person who played other fictional persons... no wonder the poor nominator was confused :) ◄Zahakiel► 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, article updated! Please go to Haruko Lisa Haruhara to read updated version. This should clear up most of the confusion. Please notify if any confusion spots that need to be explain in the article in more detail. Thanks. Updated as of March 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 PM PDT Haruko 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). --Masamage 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And never remove or edit other people's comments, even when you have taken care of their concerns. --Masamage 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it's good that someone did a great job on making a fictional article. Whoever did this, also stated the names of the voice actors/actresses and developers. He/she also said to give them credit. I think it's very creative! I can understand what the objective of this article is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.231.22 (talk • contribs).
  • Please note that this anonymous user has just spent the evening adding nonsense to the Characters of FLCL article. --Masamage 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Do anon contributions count towards AfD's? UnfriendlyFire 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The lead pretty much sums it up: an article based on creativity. Fails WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. UnfriendlyFire 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I see were you are coming from. He/she may have did some editing to an exsiting article, however, I do not know what addtional info was added to that existing article, so I cannot not personally call it non-sense, whoever did that. As of this debate in this created article, I can see some work put into it and he/she is not calling it his/her own. If you go to "references" section in the article, you can see the names of the real people that drew the fictional people and the voice actors/actress as well. Due to the information I see in the article stating to the public that this is all fictional and is trying to explain the detail about it to the best of his/hers ability, I would say, keep the article. Lets give this one a chance and see what happens once this debate is closed. Lets see if this person abuses his/hers privilege of making an fictional article, offical on this site to it's own category. But, hey, this is my personal comment regarding this. Many of you may see it differently than I. ChrisRB 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please note that this is this user's only edit. --Masamage 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - So are you saying the user that made up the article is doing edits to everyone else's comments based off this? ChrisRB 06:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm only pointing out that you're new. The administrators who make the judgment on these discussions may or may not decide to take it into account; sometimes only established users' votes are counted. That's policy. --Masamage 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  I see. And by what means is established mean? Does it go by how long have you been with the site? ChrisRB 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, but I think it is left up to their individual discretion according to the person's edit history and past contributions. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  I mean, I can see this user has to be a big fan of FLCL. I give whoever credit on the possible time that was spent, but I can see why this should be deleted, or should it? I'm more of a computer guy, so I'm not good and making calls on this. I only go by My own personal actions. When was this article made anyways? I've been on this site before and I know what show Haruko is from, but the info provided on ths new article is not true? or is it? I guess I'll just have to search for sources to answer my question. Anyway, I know this is maybe out of topic, but can I use HTML and Java code to build my page? ChrisRB 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  This particular article, as it says at the top, is not true. Visit the Welcome page for detailed info on using Wikipedia. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The opening sentence says, This is a fictional article. Huh? Why is it on Wikipedia, then? Realkyhick 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't get it. I see cartoon people on wiki, and their fictional. Is this article the same? I mean, please explain the two differences. ChrisRB 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the notability guidelines, especially the one about fiction: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance." The subject of this article has no real-world historical significance. --Masamage 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see. Now, I have another question. Lets say I'm doing a project that has been copyright by me, and I want to make an article about it. Can I do so without it be in the same shoes as this article I'm seeing now? I will not bug any of you anymore for such info, lol. As for the fictional deal, I see now. So this fictionl character maybe getting deleted due to the fact of it not being his own character profile and 2. Because this character is an FLCL character, yet different profile, it will be deleted casue of it. ChrisRB 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's generally frowned-upon to make an article about something you created because of the inherent conflict of interest. If what you made is famous enough to merit an article, someone else will eventually write one for you. And no, this article is up for deletion for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright or ownership. It's more because it is about a fictional creation that is not famous or influential in the grand scheme of things. FLCL gets an article because it is important and well-known. This actress-character is not. It seems shallow, I know, but that's how the policy works. Wikipedia is a big thing and there have to be some qualifications about what gets in, otherwise everybody and their imaginary friend would have an article, and it would be impossible to find any solid information. --Masamage 07:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• What in God's name is this junk? Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. JuJube 08:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Like I said earlier, it's just a major fan more likely. ChrisRB 08:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, 99.999% of fanfiction is not notable and this is no exception. --Kunzite 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Non-notable and admittedly a vanity piece ("tribute to Haruko" - see above) by creator (who, coincidentally, shares same name).Jill Teed 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It's now been moved into a nonstandard userspace, leaving behind double redirects. --Masamage 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note The author moved the article to various locations. It's at User:Haruko Lisa Haruhara1 now. JuJube 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete what is left-- a redirect to a redirect to a page in userspace. Leave the userspace page alone. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The userspace should probably at least be moved. Right now it's the main page of a user that doesn't exist. --Masamage 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move the main page of the user that doesn't exist to a user subpage of the article author, but make sure the article author knows what's going on when this happens so this isn't repeated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'll help by moving it to said user page and tagging the redirects for speedy deletion. Once that's done, I'll close this discussion as "broken beyond repair." Sound good? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, closed early per unanimous consensus (and 5 previous speedy deletions). For future reference, the article in its entirety read: "Xbox 720 is a possible name for Microsoft's upcoming console, which will be the successor to the Xbox 360, and is expected to be released in the 2010 - 2011 time frame." Sandstein 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox 720

Xbox 720 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Xbox 360 has been out only a little over a year. It will probably be 4-5 before any actual info about its successor comes out. Let's wait until then, instead of making random claims. Theshoestore 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. And I think you mean 'successor'. :) --Masamage 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.There, I fixed it..oops ;)-- Theshoestore 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no references saying that it's coming out in 2010 and no references saying it will even be called the Xbox 720. Until references are found, I say delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Unexplainedbacon 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete basically unsourced speculation. The name of the console could equally well be "Professor Hubert Q. Gates' Magical Virtual Entertrainment Contraption". Lankiveil 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and I demand that the Encyclopedia add an article for Professor Hubert Q. Gates' Magical Virtual Entertrainment Contraption immediately. No, seriously, delete what the heck. --Haemo 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect The article has been deleted 5 times before [11]. When the next Xbox (and its name) is unveiled, it can be unprotected (assuming they use such a stupid name). TJ Spyke 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:CRYSTAL. Resolute 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per above. MER-C 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt. per about a half dozen criteria. Realkyhick 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Considering there is now considerable talk about the new Xbox 360 black coming out in the next few months, a new case and enhancements to the current one, I don't think Microsoft are dedicating themselves to a new machine in the near future. Completely made up. Ben W Bell talk 07:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. "Possible name?". Thats not even verifiable --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unverifiable claim. -- Wenli 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Good Lord. Not even the name of the console is verifiable. The one-sentence article is speculative crystalballery. Pablothegreat85 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:V and WP:RS (no sources whatsoever) and also clearly violates WP:NOT a crystal ball. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salisbury Manor

Appears to be a non-notable building. Less than 100 ghits, and many of those that exist seem to be for an apartment building in New York City. Lankiveil 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[12] Such structures are generally considered notable because this is a peer-reviewed designation. Offline sources surely exist. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to keep based on being in NRHP. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A National Register designation makes it pretty much automatic for me. Realkyhick 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:NN. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Registered historic landmark. --Oakshade 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the State Historic Preservation Officer found the building notable enough to nominate it for the National Register, and the National Register approved it, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vortekz

Vortekz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion by 198.138.41.54, with this message: non-notable indy wrestler; if for some reason this page does not qualify for speedy deletion, could somebody please put it up for afd? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make one. Thank you. I'm not sure it is speedyable, so I'm bringing it here as asked. No opinion from me. – Qxz 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- Unless it gets some sources and a good cleanup. --Theshoestore 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, smells faintly of a hoax. Realkyhick 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - not a hoax [13] but nothing to indicate he's achieved any more than any other pro wrestler. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete promo/fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scalent Server Repurposing Software

Scalent Server Repurposing Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be promotional material for a non-notable product. Only ghits for "Scalent Server Repurposing Software" or "Server Repurposing Software" seem to refer back to Wikipedia. Lankiveil 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Ah, the great taste of Spam!. (I though I already speedied this once.) Realkyhick 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:SPAM - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Sandestein Speedy deleted per (CSD g12), was a blatant copyright infringement

[edit] Scott Newton (Philanthropist)

Scott Newton (Philanthropist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like promotional material for a non-notable realtor Lankiveil 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - copyvio from [14]. MER-C 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Definite copyvio as per above, and not notable either. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, copyvio and not notable. Realkyhick 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Advertisement/vanity. Though if he was really born in 1970 and graduated from college in 1984, that might be notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• SD copyvio. Fails WP:V too.. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania)

Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn school,no attributed sources, no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 05:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable school--$UIT 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all high schools are notable, as I argue here, and there's some good information in the infobox. Noroton 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Until guidelines are changed, high schools are pretty much automatically notable, though this is still subject to debate. Realkyhick 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To the above two posters. Do you know how policy and guideline works? Explain how it passes WP:N or any other guideline/policy? If they don't, then the article must go. God I hate people who say that BS that "all high schools are notable". WRONG, they have to proove why they are notable. TJ Spyke 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we use the ancient and honorable WP:IAR provision of our Wikipediology to !vote in deletion discussions. Somehow, somehow most high school articles stay in the picture at the end of the discussion. Must be divine intervention. My humble essay actually says something about that. When I get a little less busy, I hope to make a proposal about schools which I hope will bring around Wikipedia written policy to something closer to what Wikipedians actually want, or at least what we actually do (or maybe some fine Wikipedian will do it first). Then we can all bend down and worship that idol. Seriously, you make a good point, but WP:IAR is policy and maybe that's what allows practice to outpace policy writing. By the way, where did we put that rule that allows small towns to have articles without passing WP:N? Noroton

• Comment I will lead that genuflection, N. It would certainly be a great benefit to the community to have a consistent policy on schools we could all live with. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per Noroton above, high schools are notable within their local area. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the academic championship. There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "no consensus", "keep" or "delete" on a case by case basis. This one has it. I think a school with an academic championship is more notable than one with a great basketball program, but this particular contest is only fought in 39 states, hence the weak in my keep. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete Actually Noroton said it exactly: "most high school articles stay ." Most, but not all. I do not see how one can use the true statement that most stay in, to deduce that all stay in, or that all should. . What we should be trying to do is to find the guidelines on their merits so we don't have to start from the beginning each time, and all understand what clearly is and what clearly isn't, and only need to discuss the borderline ones. Saying that all should stay in (or out) makes it impossible to even discuss guidelines.

This one is borderline. The 2 championships might show some notability, except that they are not documented. they could be, I think. . The other Erie high school articles show that more content can often be found. I'll change to weak keep if there's any non-trivial 3rd party RS. GreatSchools is not a RS for notability: beyond recording the state Dept of Ed data, it "allows principals to add a great deal of additional information about curriculum, programs, activities, school vision and leadership." That is, it consists of directory data plus self-advertising. It is a convenient RS for the directory data, so as not to need finding the official state basic information. To list Central High School Official Website, Erie School District Profile of Central High, and Central High's main Web page at Great Schools Web site is one source, not three--and all of them good only for the directory information. DGG 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Xarr 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Eusebeus 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Noroton. --Masterpedia 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Car Experts

In Car Experts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Some industry-specific notability alleged, but seems to be mostly V/advertisement. Sneftel 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only mention of notability comes from a crystal ball article in a non-notable magazine, and the site reads too much like a company profile aimed at promoting. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, spammy. Looks like their PR firm wrote this. Realkyhick 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete looks like advertising. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Boy, when you people said it looked like advertising, you sure hit the nail on the head. This totally reads like something the PR department would type up and distribute to potential clients. The text is to an encyclopedia article as an infomercial is to a documentary. (Krushsister 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Craig

Gary Craig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Concerns over notability Sfacets 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, unless independent sources demonstrating notability are added. The article has been tagged for quite a while, and the refs are still to Craig's self-published website. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I did a Google search on "Gary Craig", and was unable to find any information other than what is on his self-published website, and small articles by other EFT practitioners. WatchAndObserve 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam spam spam spam spam spam eggs tomatoes bacon and spam. Hi Mr Craig. Please seek your free advertising elsewhere. Tnx a lot. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Gary Craig is an important person, just look at the size of the following. even if you dont like, take notice. Ben Meijer 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Rather than WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTTHINKYOULIKEIT, we need independent sources demonstrating his notability in accordance with WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of rappers

List of rappers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

What does this do that a category can't? —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. An answer is it provides red links that could potentially become articles, but this could be done elsewhere (at a WikiProject). –Pomte 10:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there are too many articles like this one, a category is much better suited for this. Sfacets 11:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List articles such as this are of very limited encyclopedic value. a category is a much better home for this data.--Anthony.bradbury 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This should be a category (if anything) --Mhking 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate list (i.e. no inclusion criteria). Punkmorten 09:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teenwag

Teenwag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Several reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure it meets WP:WEB. Secondly, it reads like an advert. Even the external links are advert-like. And a similar page was deleted in December 2006. I'm posting this here because I admit I'm not up on this kind of stuff. And maybe this is just something big that I've never heard of. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Clean-up A Google search of Teenwag brought back 57,000 results, while a Google search of Teenwag.com brought back 24,200 results. I say that makes it Notable, although it does read like a huge advert. So Keep and add {{advert}} tag --Twipie 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. No notability or coverage by reliable sources. Zero Google News Archive results. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't verifiable. No media coverage by independent sources. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - most of the Google hits are hits on the site or blogs about it. Less that 1000 independant hits and none of the first few pages are reliable sources. No news articles to be seen. Fails website notability requirements. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Fails WP:WEB, no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. User:Loopthaq has removed the afd template from the teenwag article and added teenwag links to various articles under external links, just like User:Webforall has, leading me to believe they are the same person (web stopped just when loop started). Smells like a spam campaign to me. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:WEB, and google-count is no test for notability. No secondary sources.

• Hello this is loopthaq, the site is a growing social network and Social news site, And pointers to the site at relevant places are relevant. Much like pointing to Youtube video. And regarding external news source coverage, it is going to come when there is going to be more
  http://www.google.com/search?q=site:teenwag.com&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1lw&filter=0 Gives 35000 - KEEP AND CLEANUP...
  http://www.google.com/search?q=teenwag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Gives 77000 results
  The site is growing rapidly and is not a Spam campaign - when you last quoted you said there were like 34000 results
  http://www.geeklike.com/fired-digg-employee-launches-teenwag-and-trounces-the-hell-outta-competiton/
  From a separate site, it seems to be the site is launched by a Fired Digg employee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loopthaq (talk • contribs). — Loopthaq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madhyageha Bhatta

Madhyageha Bhatta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Someone's father. Doesn't qualify for an article. Sfacets 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC

• Delete While I am sure that this gentleman was wholly devout and worthy, there is no indication in the article of encyclopedic notability. Family links do not of themselves satisfy WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability given, no reason why we should care. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. Emeraude 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UWA Mahjong Club

UWA Mahjong Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university mahjong club. Contested speedy. Guinnog 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I added the original db tag also finding it was non-notable. One reference is a primary source is from the university website and the others refer to MJ topics rather than the club itself. I left my concerns on the talk page. I might change my mind pending an adequate response from the article creator. UnfriendlyFire 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Almost certainly written by a member of the club, in which case it would trangress the guidelines in WP:COI. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry am not familiar with the protocol for leaving messages here. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest here - although it HAS been written by a member of the club, there is no advertising or information that would make it biased. Although there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club, it is certainly one of the very few mahjong clubs in university campuses worldwide. As stated in the article, mahjong is commonly seen to be an underground activity, and the aim of the club is to bring it into the open where it is less associated with gambling and more as an intelligent, interesting activity. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the things I didn't understand was why this club was considered a non notable organisation, when other clubs that exist in The University of Western Australia were considered notable clubs - not to say that they shouldn't exist, but just out of curiousity - perhaps I could then structure the article like that. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: I'll try to address all three of your main points. First of all, in WP:COI it states "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization,...". The entire article can be viewed as an advertisement to increase membership in your club. In addition, listing yourself in the "Committee" names can be viewed as self-aggrandizement. Secondly, you state "there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club", which almost automatically implies that it is not notable enough for inclusion. In Wikipedia:Notability, it states "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." If your club were notable, there'd be numerous newspaper and magazine stories about it, but there are none and so your club is not notable either. The article thus fails to meet the official policy (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Third of all, you wonder why your club was targeted for deletion versus all the other UWA clubs. Please see WP:INN, which although not a policy or guideline, states "The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted." It is likely that all non-notable clubs at UWA will show up here at AfD in time, and you can help improve Wikipedia by nominating for deletion any other club articles which you are aware of and which fail to meet the notability criteria. I hope this clarifies why the UWA Mahjong Club article is likely to fail this AfD and be deleted. It is simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable secondary sources which discuss it. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of those mentioned at University of Western Australia Student Clubs are redlinks or links to some other entity of the same name, or links to disambiguation pages. But following you pointing out the notability - or lack thereof - I have visited the links and added requests for additional references where appropriate.Garrie 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's one more UWA club article which isn't on that list: UWA Martial Arts Club. This one fits the non-notability criteria for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 (as do all of these clubs, really), so I have reluctantly added a {{db-club}} tag to it. The list itself (University of Western Australia Student Clubs) is a strong candidate for deletion, or merging into the University of Western Australia article. I really find no joy in this, since I'm much more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, but we have to draw the line somewhere. WP is not the place to host extra, highly-Google-visible websites for these clubs. --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Update: UWA Martial Arts Club has now been speedy-deleted by an admin. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Update: University of Western Australia Student Clubs has been speedy-deleted, undeleted, and now again speedy-deleted by admins. The remaining non-notable UWA clubs articles in question are UniSFA and The University Computer Club, the latter of which has now been tagged with {{prod}}. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It needs independant coverage to establish notability. One article does not get it there. Garrie 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I do not believe that this club is notable. However, calling it a COI is going a little bit too far, don't you think? Lankiveil 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Reply: Perhaps you are right that COI is too strong a term to use for a student club. Yet the article falls solidly within the guideline listed at WP:COI#Self-promotion, since it is certainly meant to increase exposure for the club and perhaps also to drum up membership. So I think I was justified in quoting from that guideline. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bikini Carwash Company

Speedied in good faith - "no unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is)" by JzG. Probably should have been debated (shrug) so sending here.--Doc^g 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A little struggle with this one - it's an old enough film where sources likely exist, but aren't readily available. We have the allmovie link, which is reliable and independent, and the IMDb cast listing, which is reliable and independent, so we have what we need for the stub covered. The film was notable enough in the director's resume to warrant mention in his obituary, which means something, so I see no reason to delete. The speedy, while in good faith, was completely improper, so please do not allow your comments to possibly reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent references (IMDB is user editable); no evidence of significance; virtually everybody in it is a nonentity (i.e. redlinked). Generic low budget soft-porn comedy of absolutely no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The cast and crew areas are actually vetted by someone else before they're updated, and they are independent. The amount of redlinks has nothing to do with something's significance, it simply means we have poor coverage in this area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite an awful movie, but that's not a valid reason. I am not convinced by the redlink thing. If you take movies by Robert Bresson, for instance, who was using amateurs as actors at the end of his career (see Mouchette or Lancelot du Lac for instance), you will have redlinks everywhere too. And you won't say that Bresson's movies are not notable. IMDB is not user editable, afaik, you can suggest edits but they are screened. And there is a second source, with the allmovie link. Hektor 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed no. Lack of independent sources is the reason. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain why All movie guide and ImdB are not independent source, plus the obituary in Variety. Hektor 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - demonstrated existence does not equal notability: if it did, we'd have articles on this girl, this chap, this lass, etc. We don't, for a good reason. This just doesn't assert notability, so delete until it does and backs that up with some third-party non-trivial RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• We are discussing about a film, and you are providing arguments about persons. Hektor 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Roughly speaking, the rules apply universally to persons and films. Existence does not equal notability for films, either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable film. The nominator defining it as "soft porn" is a POV judgement call. It wasn't at all. I agree not every film can be listed, but this one has a cult following and includes cast members such as Landon Hall and Sara Suzanne Brown who are quite prolific in the 1980s-1980s B-movie industry. I'm also pretty certain this film was issued or distributed by a major company, however the new version of IMDb doesn't appear to list this information anymore. 23skidoo 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Badlydrawnjeff. A Google News Archive search for this film yields over 100 hits [27], although virtually all of them are accessible only for pay. (Some of the hits refer to this film's sequel, and there appears to be a band named after the film as well.) However, if we had access to Showtime or Cinemax's records, I suspect we would find that this movie played on those channels more than all of Bresson's works combined. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm not convinced this can't be sourced, although it currently isn't. Neriah Davis is not a non-entity and this film is supposedly her first film appearance. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeff's reasoning. If you participated here, you might also be interested in the ongoing discussion towards a film notability guideline. A Train ^{take the} 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• No thanks. No amount of window dressing will help the fact that if there are no reliable secondary sources, we cannot (per policy) and should not (per consensus, not a directory) have an article. Verifiable existence is not enough. Please cite some non-trivial independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• As Jeff explained in his original comment and response to you above, we have independent sources in AllMovieGuide and IMDb. I'm quite certain that this movie could be found in Leonard Maltin's movie guide or some other such reference book. It's a crap movie, but reliable secondary sources exist. A Train ^{take the} 19:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, 4 Google Books hits for the film's title, one extra if you separate "car wash." Not much extra in Amazon's search under books, but it's obviously of note to be discussed in print as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep If someone wants to spend the time to create this article, there is no reason to delete it. It is a mildly notable B-movie. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - any movie that achieved widespread U.S. release should have an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It was a terrible movie but had a wide circulation and still has a cult following today. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been released in at least two territories (US and UK). The redlink comment is a redherring, redlinks are one of the ways in which we expand the encyclopaedia. Mallanox 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not in this case, I think - those people are redlinked for a reason! Guy (Help!) 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mainly because I haven't gotten around to making them bluelinks. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, though this is a tough one. What makes a film notable? It's a minor commerical release to be sure, but if you get a film released onto DVD, it's probably notable (and the director is notable as well). The article needs to be better, though (those who care about adding more sources can start here. Oh, and anyone wanna buy this for $190? --UsaSatsui 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the pr0n industry assembly line. Indistinguishable from 1000's of other fine, interchangeable products. WP != All-Pr0n Guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Except, well, it's not Pr0n. (ok, maybe softcore). A regular on latenight Cinemax/Showtime. SirFozzie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm satisfied that the references are reliable enough, particularly All-Movie Guide and the Blockbuster movie guide, even if you disregard IMDB. Was released on DVD in the UK as well as the US, that's pretty notable. Sure there are redlinks, but there are enough bluelinks as well including the director and some well known adult stars. --Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability/Verifiability is met. 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a directory listing, period/full-stop: if all that can be turned up is regurgitation of IMDB-type directory information and recounting info obtained by watching the damned -- in other words, if no reliable sources have bothered expending any prose on this subject -- then it's a warmed-over IMDB listing. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought a deletion debate was about the interest of the subject, not the size and quality of the content. Otherwise you can delete any one line stub in wikipedia and scores of film articles. Hektor 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's about whether it can be documented from relibale secondary sources, and whether these establish encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep—for once I find myself in full agreement with badlydrawnjeff. I struggled a bit with this, and my first inclination was to say delete, but I think there's sufficient evidence that it has achieved at least a minor cult status. The fact that it was mentioned in the obituary, the fact that a band is named after it, regular appearances on television (including, apparently, USA Up All Night, international distribution, Neriah Davis's first film; all of this adds up to sufficient notability, IMO. On-line references do seem a bit weak (although the existence of the same-named band makes searching difficult), but that argument leads to a "recentism" bias. I see enough to make me confident that there are reliable sources to be found, even if Google has trouble finding them. Xtifr _tälk 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydro Cannon

Hydro Cannon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a description of an attack from the Pokemon games, it is game guide and violates WP:NOT Bhamv 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and do not redirect. This can certainly be discussed in a relevant pokemon article. A Train ^{take the} 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not redirect? If it's discussed somewhere, a redirect will help a user find that information and discourage recreation of this article. — brighterorange (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because a description of the features of a single, specific attack from the Pokemon games, including its tactical uses and strengths/weaknesses clearly crosses the line into game guide information, violating WP:NOT. I don't think any Pokemon article on Wikipedia could include such information. Bhamv 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete aggree with A Train -- Diletante 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever Pokemon-related article is most appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete utter rubbish. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pokécruft. JuJube 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT, and it's quite factually inaccurate... SuperDT 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G7: author blanked the article. A Train ^{take the} 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaws

Kaws (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability has been asserted. However, it seems to fail the notability criterion (google search) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H-Dub Beeper

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

H-Dub Beeper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an extremely non-notable software considering that a Google search returns no other results (other than Wikipedia and mirrors) that mention it together with its creator. [28] Its proposed deletion was contested with the reason "This piece of software is not open source, so there are no internet sites where a person can download it. Sales of this product are currently only available in Australia, not from internet sites." which really does not address the key point - that there are no independent write-ups of this software from reliable sources. Whether the software can be downloaded online was, and is, irrelevant. Resurgent insurgent 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable as the nominator suggests. --Diletante 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete at the least non-notable and a strong whiff of a hoax. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - software seems to be quite notable. 60.225.47.127 00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect that you are the author of the page based on this edit [29]. Diletante 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are no sources cited and a search of Google News and Google News Archive does not show any.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously nn software. Lankiveil 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as above.--cj | talk 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete why would anyone pay for VB scripts to make their computer beep? About as non-notable as software gets, I'm sorry. --Canley 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have purchased this product via independent sale and have profitted from the many hours of enjoyment since. I like especially the H-Dub Pwnage Beep - the songs are terrific and almost perfect replicas of the originals. Perhaps those who do not have the required sense of humour for such products should leave these beepers to those who enjoy them. Pytho7 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)— Pytho7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - like pytho, i got this ages ago and use it all the time. its real good fun for when u have some time, especially the keyboard one - its perfect if u dont have a computer keyboard HeadShott 9:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ditto irridescenti. Shmimon 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clever idea for a program, it probably got full marks in a school prject or something - see if you can get it open source so no one can complain.--Riana 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I got this ages ago and i love it--Stewie 5:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)— Stewie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , probably the same person as Pytho7, see [30] Resurgent insurgent 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have purchased this product, just like Pytho7, from an independent seller. Its ingenuity never ceases to amaze me. Its cheap price and sheer fun create a novel program. Deletion would be a miscarriage of wikipedian justice.--Tokyoakira 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)— Tokyoakira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , vandalously removed delete !votes, see [31] Resurgent insurgent 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - idiotic idea for a program. Do not even have to look to know that this is completely non-notable - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambia CM

Cambia CM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity page, makes no assertion of notability. Hairy Dude 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination -- Diletante 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as most of this is copied from the company website. =killing sparrows 05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple turd

Purple turd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod with statement "Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Unsourced. Not notable.", was removed with out addressing concerns. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator voting delete, in agreement with prod poster User:Eaolson the article is unsourced and the topic is not notable. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The deleted prod was mine. There's no assertion of significance to this, and no evidence it isn't WP:NFT. And what is a "certain type" of men's club? Is this a euphemism for a strip joint? eaolson 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a bartending guide. Drink sounds gross as hell, also. A Train ^{take the} 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete delete You've got to be joking. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism (creator was indefblocked). JuJube 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense/WP is not a drink guide. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, not for things made up in a men's club one day. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Show me that it's a real cocktail and we'll want it back as a redirect to Cocktail. For now, get rid of it. Happy-melon 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the name of the song (song)

What is the name of the song (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources, I couldn't find any other information about it. AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - from a brief search, the correct title is possibly "What's the Name of That Song". Accordingly, delete this version, without prejudice to someone else writing an encyclopedic article with reliable sources about this subject. Addhoc 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Should we have an article for every song ever sung in a children's show? Feeeshboy 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking notability and sources, per Addhoc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spongebob Squarepants, good grief. Herostratus 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attri

Attri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub, doesn't appear to be a notable surname. Addhoc 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, was de-prodded per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In my opinion, this fails to meet WP:NOT. Salad Days 19:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Campbell

A stub about a physician. The article provides no reason to think he's notable in any way (other than having once expressed an opinion). Lee Hunter 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: nn, bordering on speedy. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Keep. Took the article as definitive. Clearly a mistake. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Article was started 4 hours ago. And the nominator admits this is a WP:POINT violation here. While it doesn't have much yet, there seems to be plenty of material on him we can use, as a simple google search for "Anthony Campbell homeopathy" will show. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The nominator admits no such thing! Yes please do a Google search. There's nothing more than a few thousand hits on Campbell. He has a few obscure pop medicine publications, some of them electronic, some of them not much more substantial than pamphlets. As far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown within his field and completely unknown outside of it. He doesn't seem to be cited by anyone as far as I can determine. The very definition of a minor figure in alternative healthcare. If anyone is curious about how WP is being gamed by a small group that is trying to remove balanced articles that show homeopathy in a neutral light and replace them with articles about homeopathy's critics (eg. Anthony Campbell) they should absolutely read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination). Compare the information provided to support Vithoulkas' inclusion in WP and compare it with the Campbell. Notice that it's the same people voting to get rid of one and add the other. Nominating Campbell for deletion has nothing to do with making a point, anyone can see in two minutes on Google that he is, at best, a minor figure. --Lee Hunter 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, Lee, you need to chill out and assume good faith. It looks like the George Vithoulkas article will survive its AFD, largely through the efforts of some of the editors you are accusing of cabalism. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep pending addition of sources. This nomination is a pretty egregious WP:POINT violation based on arguments at Talk:George Vithoulkas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas. I would like to see non-crufty reliable sources demonstrating this individual's notability, but as the article is very new I realize that they may be forthcoming. Skinwalker 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending addition of sources. as Skinwalker. Further bio info to be forthcoming. .. dave souza, talk 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC) change to keep as sources added dave souza, talk 09:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending addition of sources •Jim62sch• 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Being the long term editor of the major journal in the field is notable. (And since there will easily be sources) DGG 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Give it a chance. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly a bad faith nomination made in the setting of a rancorous dispute. Lee Hunter is frustrated and is making a statement here about the hypocracy of saying that this guy is notable enough to have a page while George Vithoulkas is not. I urge Lee to withdraw the nomination, and I urge folks who have voted to keep this page and delete George Vithoulkas to think about whether that is reasonable or not. Abridged 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable. Lakers 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owner's Agency

Owner's Agency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable. Merely a group of friends doing a class project. Edits following notability tag proceeding toward vanity. Feeeshboy 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination and as fiction written from in-universe perspective (see WP:WAF). --Metropolitan90 15:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, good one. I ought to cite that one more often. Feeeshboy 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Metropolitan90. JuJube 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't this a speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7? Fictional company which is even less than non-notable. Created by single-purpose, single-edit account (see Special:Contributions/Lamppost123456). --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodes Tower

Unreferenced article about a skyscraper owned by Cleveland State University. It's not even one of the taller buildings in Cleveland, as it is 13th. Clearly non-notable. R.smithson 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: A notable building in Cleveland, although it does need expansion and references. If I have time, I can dig some up for this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think "tallest on campus" of a major university is sufficient notability. [33] Here tallest academic building in Ohio. It is also the university administration building. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. I'd keep it based on the sole fact that it's a university admin building, but the height is an added bonus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable per links posted above. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable building. Rhino131 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. per everybody else. 11kowrom 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Tallest academic structure in Cleveland, per ref above. Even here in Los Angleles, we don't have academic structures that tall. --Oakshade 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If that page wasn't nonsense I am Jimbo Wales' sockpuppet. kingboyk 17:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Original research throughout. Marshwell102 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to wikitionary or change title It certainly isn't vandalism or nonsense. It has been made to some extent to be true, but the title; Makes it seem hoaxful and silly. Retiono Virginian 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Wiktionary has this covered already. Article meets WP:CSD#G1: patent nonsense, except nominator removed the {{db-nonsense}} tag to make this nomination. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the creator of this article had just made Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! containing only some nonsensical remark about "pigs sliding down that slope", if I remember correctly, leaving me to strongly doubt the etymological claim here. Sure, there is some semblance of truth here, people do say "wheeeee!!!" when excited, but we don't need an article about any interjection. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty underwear fetish

Dirty underwear fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. Slig303 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete - I am not suprised that this is a fetish, but it definitely does not need its own unsourced article. -- Diletante 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to satisfy WP:ATT. Nonnotable sex fetish, one of a infinite number of such. Edison 19:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm surprised this wasn't speedy deleted, especially given the edit history of the new account which created this. - Quietvoice 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For heaven's sake! - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to panty fetishism. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as a probable hoax and unverifiable regardless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete I agree with Niffweed. probably a hoax April_I_R_Fooled 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, This is systematic bias again! Dirty underwear fetish is massive in Germany and the low countries. And if it wasn't for DUF (as it is known), there would be no sex at all in Siberia. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with no redirect per wp not a page for some crap you just thought up. meshach 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, probable hoax, unverifiable, no reliable sources cited - take your pick. --sunstar net^talk 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Deletehoax --The Phoenix Enforcer 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Erm... - hoe can this be a hoax if there are so many results? [55]? Can someone translate this into German, then we can see how popular this fetish is. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as WP:OR then, just so long as it's deleted! - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I understand that last exchange correctly? Delete under any rule, appropriate or not, as long as it gets deleted? DGG 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the sound of that. How about delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article isn't well-developed, but I don't doubt that this fetish exists given the billion or so google hits. So, I recommend that the article author look for published work that discusses this fetish. Breast expansion fetish went through a similar deletion discussion, and several reliable sources were found. Consider writing the article in a user subpage until it is ready. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will of course try, but I certainly never expected to be the local expert on documenting parasexual fetishes and related subjects--I really do not have any specialist qualifications. Help for this would really be appreciated, because I expect some of this will be video and other material I can not easily work with. (smile) It will be easy enough to recreate if I cant do it with the time span needed. DGG 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it currently exists is really no loss if it's deleted, so feel free to take your time. I was mainly saying that to the creator of the article, who (I now see) doesn't happen to be participating in this discussion. As long as the article isn't salted, I'll be happy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Fetish for now; once we have enough material for this to break into its own article we can revisit. Vectro 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus A350 vs. Boeing 787 Orders

Airbus A350 vs. Boeing 787 Orders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Agree with nom. This tabulation likely only has propagandistic value. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I created this article and while I thought it was valuable information, I have no problem with its deletion. user:mnw2000 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutantimes

Spam for NN website doing little else but scraping Google News for stories mentioning Bhutan. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete until there's something to really say about this topic. - grubber 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB --J2thawiki 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mia Banggs

Mia Banggs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography. Undeleted from a CSDA7 because of nagging by creator. No claim of notability beyond having acted in porn films, no independent third party reviews of her work. She fails all the "Valid criteria" in WP:PORNBIO. We need to remember WP:BLP in these cases and weigh how much useful information is in these articles against the possible harm they can do to living people. This article makes no case for her being anything more than your standard run-of-the-mill porn actor. Delete. Mak (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep She is notable by the fact that she has appeared in over 100 movies, as stated in WP:PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO states 'modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 100 films'. The article had reliable sources proving that she is a prolific pornstar. That is all that is needed. There is nothing written in the article that isn't sourced. The WP:PORNBIO criteria are derived from results of past AfD discussions which shows that precedants have been set. I've seen many articles like this at AfD discussions and they've always been kept. There are many less notable porn stars than her on Wikipedia. This is clearly not just a vanity article. Epbr123 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was vanity. Also, the fact that there are less "notable" pornstars on Wikipedia is a bad reason to keep an article. Also, things change, AfD is not strictly based on precedent. It also says usually notable, not always notable. The only point in her favor as far as notability is concerned is that she's prolific? I think that's somewhat absurd. Mak (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of her film performances have been independenly reviewed at dvdtalk.com, for example [56]. Epbr123 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter, as Googling her gets under 400 hits. I get more relevant hits if I Google my name (real name, not WP name), and I'm not notable enough for a WP article. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources.LaMenta3 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see your POINT. Epbr123 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason she has low Google hits is that there are numourous variations of her name. 'Mia Bangg' comes up with over 200,000 hits. Epbr123 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's still significantly less than most (if not all) of the other AfDs in which I voted keep. I searched the variation you suggested on Google and still came up with anything that could be considered a reliable source. Even what appears to be her official website provides no information so as to be used as an acceptable primary source. If you can expand and appropriately reference this article with sources that I have overlooked, please do. I never vote in an AfD without first seeing if there's something I can do to "save" the article in question (unless of course it obviously appears to be crap or otherwise inappropriate for WP). I am not at all unopposed to changing my position on an AfD if the article is improved to acceptable standards. Also, WP:AGF, etc... LaMenta3 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm. Carmen Hayes 199,000 hits, Mariko Morikawa 25,000 hits, Amanda Lexx 123,000 hits, Alexis DeVell 30,000 hits, Anastasia Christ 179,000 hits. But OK, I'll assume good faith. Epbr123 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per failure to satisfy WP:ATT and per LaMenta. The "100 films" criterion is disputed as an easy way to obtain a Wikipedia article as free advertising for a porn performer. Edison 19:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whether or not she is "a contender for notability" based on some criterion or another doesn't really matter. We need to see reliable sources and we need to see them pronto. --kingboyk 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; Epbr123 seems to have done some further research, and found a reliable source or two. She was apparently a FAME award nominee, and owns a modeling agency. Good enough for me. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources, no article, porn industry is highly adept at manipulating Google, no indication provided she passes PORNBIO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The article provides reliable secondary sources so she passes WP:BIO. She passes WP:PORNBIO through her number film appearances, her noteworthy news piece and her notability in both the big-bust & anal sex genres. Epbr123 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This AfD seems to be part of an anti-porn campaign. Google gives over 230,000 hits for Mia Bangg. -- Petri Krohn 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, would you point out any other Porn bios I've nominated recently? Mak (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maemki, I don't think that he was singling you out personally, its just that the bulk of these ill-conceived nominations seem to come in waves. RFerreira 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Petri Krohn. Acalamari 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, article now provides sourcing in compliance with WP:A and meets WP:PORN BIO guidelines as well. RFerreira 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RFerreira. bbx 05:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD G1; obvious sock-supported hoax. A Train^{take the 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Xenoharbingers

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

Xenoharbingers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No proof of notability, google turns up zero hits for "xenoharbingers" Diletante 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources provided, no way to verify the content of this article. Jkelly 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously not notable, probably a hoax. ... discospinster _talk 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Looks to be totally bogus. -Nv8200p talk 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced figment of the imagination. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Probably a hoax April_I_R_Fooled 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Certain hoax, even more so if google turns up zero. Primarily the product of two single-purpose vandal accounts which have now been blocked (see Special:Contributions/Adonaiii and Special:Contributions/Kendra_Ardnek), plus a single-purpose IP vandal (Special:Contributions/80.33.103.14). --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this, my friend has ego problems. He's just looking to show this to friends to get attention for himself. Please don't satisfy him by allowing this to linger. WP:MADEUP -- feb^talk 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A person i knew tried to recruit me once, i don't think it's widespread (just in the netherlands), but real. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.220.75.184 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 March 2007. — 89.220.75.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I know this is real! It's a deffinant keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.19.22 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2007. — 206.255.19.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep This is real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.159.94 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 March 2007. — 69.76.159.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: These three IP users have, respectively: Only edited this page, Only made a minor edit outside this page, and edited other than this page, but obvious vandalism sock puppet of the above party -- feb^talk 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is legit, i've heard on this cult on a documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.72.52.203 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 March 2007. — 82.72.52.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• delete not notable--Sefringle 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - complete hoax with no truth at all. Jayden54 12:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This cult is real, i know a friend of mine who got an invitation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.165.102.114 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 March 2007. — 62.165.102.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep There are some resources on them under the name "Amethwynn society", but this is there real name. I know they have been trying to convert people a while ago. --62.143.138.60 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As this is seen as a hoax by established wikipedia users, please provide WP:RS if you wish to be taken seriously -- feb^talk 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Looks like a hoax.Shindo9Hikaru 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, simply violates WP:N and WP:V. Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Verifiable, the deventer local newspaper wrote about it a month or three ago. Notable enough. The fact it lacks back-up on the internet does not mean it can't be verified. --82.72.56.88 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment One, we have no reason to beleive this newspaper is a reliable source, two, you're provided no reason to beleive this newspaper has actually published this or anything of the sort, and three, a single newspaper article does not mean notability, in almost all cases -- feb^talk 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.RaveenS 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 747-8 Orders

Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 747-8 Orders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Agree with nom. This tabulation likely only has propagandistic value. — RJH (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. You probably should have combined your nominations, as they are very similar. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taupok (game)

Taupok (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local game, only relevant details from wikipedia:reliable sources are about the stir over just one letter to a major newsletter complaining about it. example description I'm not sure we need an article for everything students do in school that have caused letters to be written in newspapers. Resurgent insurgent 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Dr bab 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly falls under WP:NFT. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Tnomad 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inkthis

Inkthis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-promotional, conflict of interest. Notability not established; does not include references that satisfy WP:A. — ERcheck (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per my nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Feeeshboy 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - blatant spam. The article has already been speedy deleted once today; is there a reason why it wasn't this time and came to AfD? --J2thawiki 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - grubber 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A3/G11/take your pick. Salting in a minute. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker Safe

Hacker Safe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page has been speedied and deleted before, yet it has come back. Let's decide on this one, please, and salt if deemed necessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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