Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 12 August 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunshine Way

A street somewhere, or maybe not -- a house? Doesn't seem notable (no relevant Google hits for "sunshine way"), and unmaintained. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 21:51Z

  • Weak keep. It seems like a historical housing development. However, it needs some citations and some explanation as to why it's particularly important. The mention about the sunshine rooms is helpful, but that alone isn't necessarily an assertion of notability. --FreelanceWizard 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if importance cannot be established, e.g. listed properties, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and unverifable in almost any claim Konman72 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the street isn't notable, it's not even mentioned on the Mitcham article --RMHED 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added Category:Tuberculosis, which puts the TB reference into context. Before antibiotics, fresh air was one of the few treatments for TB. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn street Jaranda wat's sup 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. The TB ref/cat does indeed put the article into historical and notable context. Agne 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. ViridaeTalk 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established. Seems unverifiable. — NMChico24 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn per above. Maybe worth a passing mention in the article on Mitcham. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think we were going a bit far in haveing an article for every tiny village, every street is going way to far unless there is a very strong reason to say otherwise. Jon513 11:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mitcham, Surrey, England. Kappa 11:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep We shouldn't be noting every street in the world in Wiki, as they're simply not notable, unless, for some particularly reason, such as Rodeo Drive or Hollywood Blvd, they are notable. Given Sunshine Way's particular involvement with TB patients and it's unique architecture to accomodate them, it crosses the line from deletion to being kept. Mugaliens 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The TB reference is a canard wrt to notability; this is inherently non-notable. Eusebeus 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Mugaliens -- Martinp23 14:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Seems historical, but low google hits, and one paltry reference to a "local paper" digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mugaliens. Historically interesting. Drett 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per TruthbringerToronto and others, hoping it may one day be part of a broader article on 'sunshine houses' (e.g. in Leeds) - and other anti-TB housing measures in the UK. [1]--HJMG 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mugaliens. NCurse work 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 23:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per HJMG. the wub "?!" 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepThere is an historic significance here that the article creator failed to convey. If only we can haul it to the surface. :) Dlohcierekim 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Digital Cable

Non-notable company; 115 Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Haakon 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete. It reads like an advertisement, some of the claims are most likely unverifiable ("VDC Corporation, based in Northbrook, Illinois, is the first company to deliver Television On the Desktop" -- I rather doubt that), and it seems otherwise non-notable. --FreelanceWizard 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - I use VDC to watch NASA TV, and I got to watch the entire Space Shuttle Mission twoo weeks ago in high quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Note - user's first non-vandalism edit. Haakon 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. My opinion is that if you simply don't like the description and it reads like an advertisement, just change it. I have no problem with this article and quite frankly I find it useful as this company provides a service that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to spur innovation, knowledge, ideas, creative thinking and education. Why do you people always feel the need to censor and shut down the creative process simply because you disagree with the words or phrasing of the article? I see no difference between this article and Comcast or Time Warner or ANY other legitimate business that has a listing on Wikipedia. I say keep it and stop your ongoing suppression of ideas, free enterprise, and discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - As a journalist for multiple trade-presses in the telecommunications industry I can attest that VDC is in an interesting position currently. Broadcasting on the internet, the company is trying to obtain mainstream television programming that is seen on current cable systems but is apparently being held back because of certain copyright, FCC, and internet broadcast restrictions imposed upon them by the larger broadcasters and cable operators (which some see as an illegal act). As many in the cable broadcast industry are currently doing, I'd keep a close eye on this company because many of the actions carried out by this company can impose how the government and the FCC regulates cable television on the internet in the future, since IPTV is now basically unregulated. Just as the last commenter stated, change the article to read more neutral but I believe that this company is true to what they claim and aren't going to disappear anytime soon. --68.23.37.235 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Note - user's first edit. --Haakon 18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure that being first meets WP:CORP here. Vegaswikian 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comments I again think that what this company is doing in the cable industry does meet Wikipedia's Criteria for companies and corporations as outlined by WP:CORP. For your reference please see the below news stories which DO comply with Wikipedia's first criteria where; "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." 68.23.37.235 00:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I got 164 GHits, and a good proportion were WP or mirrors. Mentioned as "new" as of 2006-05-23 here. Not a fantastically authoratative source I know, and I'm aware that newness doesn't constitute a failure of WP:CORP, but it really doesn't seem notable. technologyguide.com did have a review of their service, but I'm not sure that makes it notable. I also might add that there have been a lot of new and anon users commenting on this AfD in the past, and (probable) sockpuppeting just screams "spam" to me. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Socks need to be dealt with. — NMChico24 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable company; NMChico24 says it fails Wikipedia's corporation standards. --Bigtop 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Resolute 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If the company becomes notable, a worthwhile article can be created at the time. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the news article starts "A new Internet-TV company plans to launch...". That is not notable news coverage. The news coverage needed for inclusion is about a company doing something notable and then being the in newspaper. Not planning on doing something interesting and being writen about on a slow news day. Jon513 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google hits are an incredibly poor metric as to an article's worth to society. Some of the best and most relevant Wiki entries have very few Google hits while some of the least worthwhile entries enjoy millions of Google hits. This company's efforts and technologies have eliminated half the bills paid by my cousin and his family, and it's lead the way towards encapsulating everything over IP, including TV, phone, and browsing the Internet. That's very noteworthy! Mugaliens 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Google test may not always be as appropriate a measurement for notability, but neither is your cousin ;-) The criteria for corporate notability is listed in WP:CORP. Haakon 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Just an example, Haakon. The real test is the fact that their technology is likely to have a tremendous impact on AT&T, Comcast, Roadrunner, and a lot of other ISPs and telcos. It remains very noteworthy. Mugaliens 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That is not a fact, but speculation. If this company becomes notable in the future for that reason, then an article can be recreated in the future. Resolute 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Martinp23 14:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above inrelated stories and artiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I'm not sure that the usual criteria can easily be applied from WP:CORP in that the claim to notability is that they are the first to do this. On the other hand, the article itself reads like a press release (it must be rewritten if kept), and the claim for notability has not been sourced. The only article provided actually shows the opposite, as the company is still planning to do it(crystal ball). If the company's claim can be properly sourced and some additional notable media articles about the company are sourced, I'd change to a keep. -- Whpq 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to meet criteria and intention of WP:CORP to me. SorryGuy 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:CORP but appears that notability is forth-coming. More verifiable resources needed. Mirror Whpq's comments, but voting on the other side. --CPAScott 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is my first time posting, but I wanted to add my support to keeping this page. I'm also a trade journalist following VDC. They are a small company raising some very interesting regulatory issues about how video can be delivered via the Internet. I don't see how this violate violates WP:Corp, just because the mainstream press hasn't picked up on them yet. Wikipedia is about spreading information, not stifling it. The more said about VDC, the better. Jw3000 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note - user's first edit. (Yes, I know, you said so, but I'd still like to mark all first-timers) --Haakon 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Forthcoming importance and a testimonial from someone's cousin? Please!. Neither satisfies WP:CORP. :) Dlohcierekim 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete of everything but Sierra Atlantic per copyright concerns and notability. Yanksox 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reachwell Software Services Private

Non Notable company. Google hits only give the said company's links. No mention of the company in the Indian media. I am also nominating these other companies for the same reason.

  • Keep Sierra Atlantic - decent press coverage and major expansion plans here and recent business win here. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Persistent Systems - USA, India and Japan offices with significant outside investment here. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete QualEx Systems - small company (70 employees). NN. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reachwell Software Services Private - limited press coverage. NN. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Persistent Systems - There are about 25 entries from July 06 where Persistent is cited in the media. The Company has 2600 employees. here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.175.207 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Keep Persistent and Sierra per BlueValour --Ageo020 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete QualEx Systems - POV / advertising, no content, not notable. Mrvolvo 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Reachwell Software Services Private. No independent sources, no evidence of serious press coverage, indistinguishable from 1,000 other nn small software outfits. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete QualEx Systems. Written in first person: need I say more? OK, same comments as Reachwell. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Persistent Systems. Publicity agent who wrote the article was at least clueful enough to rephrase to third person. Forbes' account of this company looks impressive until you think about it -- 700 release cycles and wrote some code for 200 "industry-leading" products. My last dinner party could claim more nearly as much. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Sierra Atlantic. Reasonable publicity, some marginally-noteworthy industry impact. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it would be advisable to relist each one separately. Eusebeus 12:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - no, please no, I really don't want to go through such a boring bunch of companies again :-) Let's try and make some clear decisions and then forget them! BlueValour 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — QualEx Systems has just been tagged copyvio - Glen 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Reachwell is also a copyvio guys. I have left the AfD tags on incase they are not deleted due to copyvio, in which case the outcome here is relevant. Thanks - Glen 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was lack of consensus to delete, ergo Keep. Ifnord 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbi Taewoong

Incredibly non-notable. Google and Yahoo comes up with ZERO (!) results for his name, he has his own website as reference, verifiably (?) fought once in K-1, which was a loss Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Would you mind to check the gallery on his homepage, he is well known in Thailand under the fighter name of Thopadak. You can see his photo on 16 covers of Thailands Muay Thai magazine alone (see gallery). You can find nearly 100 articles in newspapers that are scanned and in the gallery showing his photo, interviews, etc unfortunately if you can not read Thai you can not understand the articles, but you can see the photos in the newspapers.
He did fight K-1 only once so far (the loss against Kalakoda in K-1 was controversial, check the video and you see why), but he is a KOMA champion of 2005, photo on his homepage proving this (champion belt worn on photo) but in Japan for example someone who fought K-1 is a celebrity as it is, since there are not that many people who have fought K-1 events overall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by G00dgirl (talk • contribs)
Searching Google with the keyword "Thopadak" it lists 7 (!!) hits, from which 3 are fansites. If he's so popular why there aren't several Thai pages (.th) that says his name? Not even Thai Wiki mentions him. Maybe you can provide us his Thai name with Thai characters? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Thai pages would not contain his name in transliteration but most likely in Thai language. You can find his name written in most of the newspaper articles that were scanned if you know what to look for, the name in Thai letters is spelled as follows: ต.ปฏัก. He has not been fighting under that fighters name since he fought in Bangkok. In Thailand fighters adopt the name of the gym they train at. He has been fighting as Sinbi Taewoong for Taewoong gym in Korea in the past few years, for example when he won the KOMA championship in 2005 and several other fights in Korea, but I have no idea about Korean language to know the name in Korean letters. He is going to fight K-1 again this year after going to hold seminars in South Africa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by G00dgirl (talk • contribs)
Fine for me. But still cite that he's a champion in References section. I saw his video on k-1fans that was so low quality handycam-made one (thus unofficial) that you can't even recognize which one is him. But as it stands right now the page will survive the nomination. Don't forget to vote here also, because as a creator of the page you aren't restricted to do so (I don't knwo if you aware of this. And sign your posts with ~~~~ four tildes, instead of the unsigned formula. But keep expanding the article towards notablity in place of the over-detailed biography. Are you a childhood friend of Sinbi? You know how much he weighted at the age of 9 and claim that you made the photo of him...But still remain objective. Best wishes and good luck for editing. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --G00dgirl 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The better quality videos of the Busan K-1 event can be downloaded here: http://www.k-1khan.com/kahn-web (not only Sinbis fight, but all of the event.) Sinbis fight is here: http://www.k-1khan.com/kahn-web/sinby-calacoda.wmv

Someone in the k1-fans forum has also posted a link to that address before. I am a fan and friend of Sinbi and met him personally, yes. I did not believe that pleas without being objective would aid the discussion. Thanks for the tip about the voting, I never did it but I think I read you are supposed to just put "Keep" on the page? --G00dgirl 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Still I must say that notability and creditability of the artcile is questionable as "ต.ปฏัก" drop 5 hits on Google from which one is an XLS Excel document and the pages would need proper translation. The article doesn't have (and as I see can't have) references stated there. For example how can you justify the statement that he was 25 kg at the age of 9? Is it possible in any way to cite this? I don't think so... Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Other comments - I also like to note that the infobox has a totally blank fighting record table, and the claim that he is a KOMA champion is only referenced by the KOMA link itself that is an extremely stubby article written by the same author (G00dgirl). Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sinbi is shown on a photograph with the KOMA champions belt on his website (http://sinbi-taewoong.com/images/stories/sing_koma_champion.jpg). Someone who did not win the event does not get to pose with the champions belt on. The fighting record is so extensive, that even Sinbi himself did not keep accurate count of all the fights in his life, I did not want to put inaccurate figures into the box. The official K-1 page lists his K-1 fight on the following page, they spelled his name Shin Bi, see

http://www.so-net.ne.jp/feg/k-1gp/b05_1105max.htm, fight number 5 Superfight. --G00dgirl 05:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per comments above and newscoverage on the subject's website.--Chaser T 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Martinp23 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments regarding media coverage and Thai spelling of name. This article does need a clean-up, though. Drett 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that if championship is non-notable and media coverage is non-notable than the person still remains non-notable. Searching "KOMA champion" (KOMA is ambigous) it will come up with 9 results, one is a wikipage, three are erotic pages, and one DVD shop. And yes of course he has Thai name if born there, but can you say it is spelled correctly or even true? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Lajbi, I think you're relying too heavily on google results, here. Thailand is not as wealthy or internet-savvy as many countries in the Western world. Any phenomenon there will get fewer google hits than a comparable phenomenon in the United States or Germany, for example.--Chaser T 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then books maybe? ISBN whatever. We need other sources than his own home page. Until then it has to be removed...And K-1 is heavily backed up with whatever info you want. It is highly popular in Germany and also has media coverage in the US. If he's a notable fighter (apart from that one loss) there must be some reference. If not nobody cares about him, that's because he is so non-notable. There are a bunch of people in boxing for example that can be hired to be beaten up. Do they deserve all their own pages?Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for the information, his Thai name ต.ปฏัก ส.จุลเสน. His first name, ต.ปฏัก, is the homophone of the 15th Thai alphabet, (ฏ.ปฏัก). Since I don't know him and I'm not into the boxing. I might go for neutral then. --Manop - TH 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's a close call, but I'm going for keep. Here's his homepage: http://sinbi-taewoong.com/. Apparently he has been in a couple of thai articles and on some frontpages. He's also a thaiboxer, does anyone know if he has done any fighting at the Rajadamnern stadium or the Lumphini stadium? He's noted on the K-1 site so I guess he qualifes the policy "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.". I give it a weak keep as long there's some clean-up. Btw, Lajbi, he said on his web-page that he took his first fight at the age of nine. It's quite common in thailand to fight at an early age. I'm not logged in, but I'm the user NoNo. --84.217.155.207 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Blue Star

Local company. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. TerriersFan 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as being too localized. fuzzy510 07:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - if there was anything notable about this firm, I would have expected a minimal press mention. However, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, the only Google hit here is their own website (the other hits are to some store; a different company) and even that doesn't work! If you go to here and put Associated Blue Star in the search box you will find whar's bouncing in Worcester. TerriersFan 14:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SizzleLayouts.net

Really new site with no Alexa rank. Obviously fails WP:WEB. Currently, at http://sizzlelayouts.net we can see only code. Jacek Kendysz 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP Hello. The site's "code" problem is fixed and will be consistantly updated weekly. Yes, it did just recently open and this is why it is not super popular yet. Word has just begun to spread and more and more people periodicly have been visiting the site. Please leave this page open for at least 1 more month before deletion. I beleive the site will be much more popular by then. Best Regards To all -Site Owner Jordan Irwin 07:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ViridaeTalk 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very obvious delete With no disrespect to the site's owner, please consult WP:WEB and WP:N. The site opened yesterday, and, unsurprisingly, is non-notable. A Google search of "SizzleLayouts" brings up 4 pages on Yahoo! Answers and nothing else. -- Kicking222 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... discospinster talk 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Pinkstarmaci 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep This site seems as if it will become more popular, give it time. Me 11:57 August 6, 2006 (UTC)
  • Note:Forged signature. Vote actually entered by User:Aries green monkey, who identifies himself above as Jordan Irwin, the site owner. Vote stricken. -- Fan-1967 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP consensus is very clear, the website is to become notable before it can be included in WP. Websites, like any person, are born non-notable. hateless 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hateless. Wikipedia is not for promoting new sites, but for documenting sites which have already become notable. Fan-1967 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see why this is being relisted - looks like an obvious delete close. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I suppose it is better to be sure, but this was an obvious delete from the get go. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Resolute 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pretty obvious, not much else left to say digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Martinp23 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above--Peephole 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. —dima /sb.tk/ 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete way too non-notable -- Whpq 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:V indicating any sort of notability, looks like WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. NCurse work 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam for a non-notable website. Shouldn't have been relisted, there was consensus. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam promotion Macktheknifeau 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not support notability. It reads like an ad. Still no Alexa. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a collection of information about sites whose owner hopes for much more popularity. 15 google hits including Wikipedia and Myspace. Fails WP:WEB. And vote forgery strains my WP:AGF to the point of saying, "I don't like Spam. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding Heads

Nonnotable/advertising/vanity article for software. Prodded but prod deleted by original author. Acyso 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Relisted Acyso 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn software.--Kchase T 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article does not conform to WP:V. -AED 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — If someone can show some kind of press or notability I'd change my vote, but for now it's a delete mboverload@ 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please continue merge-related discussions on the appropriate talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolmen Water Tunnel

Is this tunnel significant enough to warrant an entry? CPAScott 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No. -- Kicking222 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is 82 km long, and I have only found one longer such tunnel in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong. BIL 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    If you say you've found only one longer water tunnel, we believe you. --LambiamTalk 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    But this page claims that the 5,35 m diameter Orange-Fish tunnel in South Africa, with a length of 82,8 km, is the longest continuous enclosed aqueduct in the Southern hemisphere and the second-longest water supply tunnel in the world (presumably after the Päijänne Water Tunnel). That would make the Bolmen tunnel presently the third. An 85.3 km tunnel is said here to be under construction in Liaoning Province. --LambiamTalk 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bolmen and redirect (two little stubs together...aahhh). Yomangani 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. If more is added to the article. Surely the third longest water tunnel is notable and something more can be said about it. If not, then maybe it is not all that notable. I marked it as a stub, maybe someone will be able to add a few more facts that address the article's current weaknesses. Vegaswikian 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I had a fairly good look around before suggesting the merge and I couldn't find anything to add. Yomangani 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. There are loads of stubs on Wikipedia that are as short or refer to a more minor piece of infrastrucure than this one. This one just needs more on it. Trnj2000 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is a piece of major public infrastructure, and hence far more important than 99.99% of the sci-fi/fantasy/gamer content that passes for articles on Wikipedia. --Centauri 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge to Bolmen. No strong preference. -AED 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - major piece of engineering. New York City is building a longer one, but it won't be done until 2020 or so. --Brianyoumans 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bolmen. Doesn't need its own entry. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bolmen digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Bolmen Martinp23 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge tp Bolmen -- Whpq 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bolmen NCurse work 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly merge to Bolmen. If either article grows to overcrowdedness, we can split them again. :) Dlohcierekim 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OOPS forgot to say a redirect would be in order. :) Dlohcierekim 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is interesting enough, having in mind that more than 180 A-roads and 19 road junctions in the UK have articles. Libb2 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliza Orlins

Delete vanity page, WP:BIO. Being a contestant on Survivor does not impart Notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Also, copyvio from [2]. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • One could argue that facts about a person such as where they lived, went to school, etc. are not protected by copyright law including facts presented on the CBS website bio page for the subject. FeelsLikeHome 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously real and the attempt at "fame" does exist. However, I'm not certain of meeting WP:BIO[3]. Also, if she met said guideline, I don't think she would merit an article since her importance is just in the show and there is nothing to show that she is noted or important outside of the scope. There appears to be no heavy coverage or real interest by the media. Yanksox 03:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep per WP:BIO. Involvement in hit national TV show, and substantial media attention, easily qualify this person as she was a major player on her season. There is a regular precedent to keep comparable contestants on national hit reality TV shows -- The majority of the other seasons of this show have all members of the "Final 4" with a wiki entry and having an entry for this person eliminates redlinks in other articles. Also "Eliza Orlins" in a google search turns up over 11,000 hits. FeelsLikeHome 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - In summary her only notability is winning a car on a multipart game show in which she came 4th - Not at all notable - Peripitus (Talk) 07:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - thousands of people have won prizes on game shows, but they don't have articles on WP, so whats different here? Martinp23 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NCurse work 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomMusaabdulrashid 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The entry itself shows how un-noteworthy it is. It reads like a MySpace page more than a noteable person. Eliza's achieved some cool stuff, but just because she was on a reality show (and not even the runner-up) doesn't make her study abroad and sorority activities, nor her father's achievements, meritorious of inclusion into an encylopedia. It definitely doesn't meet the criteria in the Bio for entertainment or television personalities:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per NN. Tony the Marine 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I've started a discussion section on the Deletion Policy page regarding reality television contestants. My main point is this: the ABC.com homepage does a perfectly fine job of sorting out who is a contestant, and their background. Jimmy Wales stated we should focus on quality, not quantity. What is it that these entries give to the internet that is not already covered by their homepages for the game shows?

Here's a link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Reality_Telvision_Contestants

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rifleman Isiah Tongue

Google comes up with one exact match in a character listing. The notability of this character is limited, failing WP:NN. The article also does not follow accepted structure. Michael 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Michael 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Sharpe's Rifles (novel). A need for clean-up is not grounds alone to delete an article, only to improve it. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable minor character. Also I'll probably fix the redirect of Sharpe's rifles that's wrongly directed to the rifle making search impossible MLA 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Sharpe's Rifles (novel), either way it doesn't need it's own article digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Martinp23 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NCurse work 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Petros471 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surfwear

Advertising, WP:NOT Ne1ls 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable type of clothing. "Surfwear" get 515,000 google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Surf culture. The current article consists mostly of a list of manufacturers/brands of surf fashions which echoes the content of the individual articles on each of those companies which is not necessary. -- Whpq 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a subcategory of Category: Clothing_brands, not an article 66.98.131.107 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Whpq. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Surf culture. I don't see the need to merge since most brands have their own articles anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Whpq digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Whpq Martinp23 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is a good article to keep, only it should be cleaned up --Jort227 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduardo Reck Miranda

Self-aggrandizing vanity page for the academic. Fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO. Possible fail on WP:PROF (Is the subject more widely published than the average academic? Contrary to claims in previous discussion, MIT search yielded zero results) Subject directly links to self-composed autobiographical page from his official website, exploiting wikipedia for advertising/self-promotion [4] (i.e. the page violates WP:NOT) Notice that page reads like a CV, cataloguing a list of the subject's jobs. Article has already been proposed for deletion. However, all things considered, the article seems to me such a blatant misuse of wikipedia that it warrants, I feel, further consideration. Pathlessdesert 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite It was a unanimous Keep on last AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eduardo_Reck_Miranda. The MIT search is behaving oddly - see Google [5] Also Google Scholar shows 60 publications including 4 books [6] Dlyons493 Talk 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, pending reliable citations. This started out as an autobiography, but has subsequently been edited by several other people. DVAIN notwithstanding, I would like to see reliable sources that establish (a) that he has over 100 research publications, (b) that his books are standard references of the field (eg., textbooks), and (c) verifiably, that the concerts where his music has been performed are major or notable venues. Delete if these citations are not provided in the course of the AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Selection and performance at events such as ICMC [7] are typical for the average academic/ composer working in this field and do not signify notability. I see no evidence either that publications meet above criteria. To all appearances an average non-notable academic. --Pathlessdesert 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ugh - vanity page of a minor, nn academic. Eusebeus 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Despite the strong whiff of self-promotion, books exist and one is in its second edition. The "100 articles" claim is a bit of an exaggeration though, since most of them are in proceedings. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just got a copy of "Sound Synthesis for the Electronic Musician...one of the shabbiest knock-offs I've ever seen; (Libellous comments here removed by Crockspot, per WP:BLP), and the original parts are a chaotic read. Even the English usage is poor. The review in the Computer Music Journal was similarly bad (go check it out). Please delete this vanity page; the guy's already got his professorship (somehow), he doesn't need to sell himself anymore, does he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.241.129 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently fails WP:WWIN, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:CR. Let me know if rewritten with credible references. -AED 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable despite being a bit annoying. He has been the subject of significant press coverage, as listed at http://neuromusic.soc.plymouth.ac.uk/ As well, that page lists lots of scholarly publications and a bunch of recordings, which taken together add up to notability to me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as he is obviosly notable. Carioca 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, pending reliable citations as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. I've marked the page with a few {{fact}} in the hope that someone will provide citations. Jayvdb 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs clean up, but the publications make him noteworthy. Nickieee 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please just delete it - it is not important. It was not intended as self-promo, vanity, publicity, etc. but to provide information for interested parties. But I agree that an autobio such as this might not be appropriate for wikipedia. Eduardo.miranda 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please publications make this person notable this is fine Yuckfoo 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove from Articles for deletion as the article has been cleaned up somewhat. Obviously, there's more work to do. For example, the information at EETimes needs to be placed in the article. This guy is really accomplished (had some of the above posters actually took the time to look into his background rather than remain ignorant) and well deserves to be in Wikipedia. He was motivated to develop the article but was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's requirements, which was no reason to insult him from ignorance. This article should be removed from Articles for deletion and someone should contact Dr. Miranda and inform him of the same. -- Jreferee 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Live

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

No indicated notability aside from some obscure web awards, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 29,607 and a google search delivers about 22,400 hits. Peephole 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I could swear I've voted in a previous AfD for something like this. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V. Michael 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I am not logged in at the moment, I also nominate this article for deltetion on the grounds that the sites google search numbers are not very accurate. The search engine will bring up all releveant searches for "Hogwarts Live," but in te book series, the students studying to become wizards live at the hogwarts castle. So "Hogwarts Live" doesnt necceraly bring up a huge amount of site rankings because its a popular site, but a popular collection of words. If my not logging in hurts credibillty, I can always do just that, but I have already typed my response :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.30.232 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 August 2006 .
    • Actually, this doesn't seem to happen as much as you might expect - it looks like most of the Google results are actually about the game in question. - makomk 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm reposting what was said on the talk page here in defense of keeping the article, so we can get both sides of the issue. --71.202.96.225 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just happened to notice that this article was put up for deletion. I’m a former member of Hogwarts Live and first recall reading about it in a Denver Post article concerning the Harry Potter phenomenon and the rise of online roleplaying games dedicated to the subject. The article was not very well researched, but I do believe if one could find it that it would prove this site’s notability, correct? This article was published about a week or two previous to the release of the last book in the series.
      • Does anyone know where that article is? I just took a look at the sites Alexa rating and compared it to other notable sites, and it seems to be way up there in terms of traffic and number of reviews (29,607 - this beats out HPANA in terms of reach). I've seen it mentioned on another Wikis as well as Harry Potter sites, I'd definitely say it's notable considering it's probably one of the top 5 most frequented non-official Harry Potter-related sites on the net. According to one of their MoTDs they received 22,558,769 pageviews for the month of June, and 1,332,402 pageviews for the day of July 11, 2006, which is far more the reported traffic for many other sites that have Wikipedia articles. As far as text-based RPGs go it is also the most visited/popular RPG according to the "Top > Kids and Teens > Games > Online > Roleplaying > Harry Potter" category on Alexa/Amazon [8]. --Theluse 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont understand why you plan to delete it. I know for a fact as a member of the site that It is very Active. Looking at the online members alone shows how many members there are 317 members online, And that is not even loaded. I think the article tells the truth. -Michael [RikuSaotome] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.142.68 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2006.
  • Comment Hogwartslive has about 200 to 300 members on all the time. Its always being updated and getting bigger. It has alot more members and activity than some Harry Potter sites. Its also one of the best Harry Potter Rpg's on the net...and trust me i have looked at a lot. -Coby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.241.206 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2006.
    • Comment The 6K+ members are active, they delete users who haven't logged in in over a month. --71.202.96.225 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a staff member of Hogwarts Live, I can verify that the site is incredibly active, it is my responsibility to run maintenance on the site, including removing users who haven't signed in in a long time, and I run my deletion script hourly with over 6000 active users remaining (6336 at the posting of this comment) which you'll note is a larger number then either of the usercounts listed on the Legend of the Green Dragon listing on Wikipedia. One look at our stats page shows that we are consistantly receiving over 1 million pageviews each and every day. We were indeed featured in a Denver Post article in the summer of 2005 about the rise in popularity of Harry Potter RPGs, and among sites running the LoGD code, we have one of the highest online counts at any given point in time. I urge you not to delete this page, while it really should be updated (I'd be glad to help), it does not deserve to be removed. The site deserves the notability that it has received and will continue to receive. --Portalcap 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (known on HogwartsLive as Edmund)
    • Keep I agree, I think sources need to be cited, more text should be added regarding it's notability, and the template tag Template:Cleanup-afd should be applied so that it can be cleaned up to better conform with policy. --71.202.96.225 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep I know for a fact that Hogwarts Live was featured as Site of the Day on an IPTV program in England a few months back, someone was talking about it in the Great Hall. Anybody? I don't want this to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.32.3 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 August 2006.

Keep Seems to be notable, especially if it's been mentioned in a newspaper and a television program. All it really needs is sources. The Denver Post and the IPTV program could be referenced, even if they're inaccurate (if this is the case, something like "The Denver Post[9] says that..." would work). The Alexa links could be used as references too, when citing claims about the game's popularity. Definately salvageable with some referencing. -kotra 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website, fancruft. Eusebeus 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. First, the wikipedia article for "Hogwarts Live" fails to mention its prior violation of the creative commons license(the license for the source code it uses). This article seems to have several other biases which conflicts with wikipedia's philosophy on neutrality. It is little more than an advertisement for the site, rather than an accurate wikipedia entry on the subject. A properly formatted article would include information regaurding licencing issues and problems with source code redistribution within the open source community. The article is mearly a "we like this website" entry. I also agree with the above posters comments on the number of pages referencing "Hogwarts Live" on a search engine would be highly inaccurate due to the fact that in the book series students LIVE at the HOGWARTS castle. Lastly, have to disagree with one of the above posters: The sites online count can not be entirely accurate either because the auto-logout time is 10,000 seconds, which is a very long time. A user can appear on the online list for almost 3 hours after they stop playing. The "online count" that the software uses makes the assumption that a user "logs off" when they have finished a session. Unless a user is accessing the site though a school, library, or some other public computer system, there is no need for a user to "log off" officially. This means that if a player is "playing" for five minutes, he/she will still appear to be playing to the rest of the world via the online count for an addtional two hours and forty-five minutes. Should the Hogwartslive people wish to use active players as a justificaton for inclusion on wikipedia, they should be willing to use a counting system that reports such player activity accurately. --Andrew 9:22am August 9th, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.176.182 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2006.

  • Sounds like an entirely reasonable way of counting users to me; being a browser-based game, there's no real way of telling if someone is still online. Oh, and the Google search was for the word "Hogwarts" immediately followed by the word "Live", which doesn't come up in contexts not related to this game as much as you might expect. - makomk 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-notable stuff. --Bigtop 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Nickieee 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN pottercruft. Macktheknifeau 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Musaabdulrashid 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to Andrew's message above, I would like to point out that HogwartsLive never violated the Creative Common's License, our modified version of the source code has been available throughout our development of the project, we also actively submit new modules to the LoGD community, a couple of my own becoming popular (if you want proof of that, do a Google Search for my name, Nicholas Moline, you will find hundreds of listings that correspond with the module list on hundreds of LoGD installations). As for the online player count, I very commonly purge the entire online list, knocking every user out of the game, and within 10 minutes the online list is back to between 100 and 400 online users. I do not wish this comment to be the insight of a flame war in this thread, however your previous statement was defamatory, which I assume you knew, because you did not actually sign your post, you just put a name and a date there. Portalcap 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is going to be an obvious bias in this response and this should not be counted as a vote to keep the article. I will state for the record that the site in question is my own. I am familiar with the community's opinions on Wikipedia:Fancruft as well as Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have been asking other Wikipedians on their opinions concerning whether this article should be deleted and have received mix responses. I know personally that I have found articles that in many respects are less notable than this one, such as ISFDB, Archspace, or HPANA, useful, educational, and even interesting. Notability seems to be based on one’s own subjective interpretation of whether or not a source is reliable. I would like to examine this page [10], which shows not only that the Hogwarts Live article is read by a great deal of people, but that many websites directly related to the topics of Harry Potter or Roleplaying are referring users to Hogwarts Live. As you can see for the month of July, 1369 users were referred to HL via its Wikipedia entry. The term "sciencecruft" has sometimes been used as a sarcastic opposition to deleting obsolete topics due to certain biases concerning their pertinence. There is no official policy on fancruft, and I would not consider it a legitimate reason to delete an article. Wikipedia aims to incorporate elements of "specialized encyclopedias" among other things. I do believe this article could be rewritten to be more succinct, clearer, and verifiable. To quote policy: "some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page." Also, I feel that the fact that this site receives a considerably large number of pageviews (over 1 million a day) in comparison to many other websites that have Wikipedia articles, is testament to its notability. Alexa lists HL in a similar traffic range[11] as sites such as Pepsi.com, FreeAdvice.com, and MPOGD, all of which are popular in their respective industries. Just to get this out of the way I would like to state that I disagree with the recent proposed deletions of Space - Glory Through Conquest, Pirates of the Caribbean Online, List of Final Fantasy characters (including many others), and will proceed to further voice my opinions on this matter on their appropriate deletion discussion pages. However, if I am indeed mistaken and none of these articles are worthy of Wikipedia entries, I’ll be more than happy to copy the contents of these articles over to a Wiki I started as a sort of supplement to Wikipedia, which does not allow as much freedom for fans to create detailed articles on the minutiae of certain fandom due to the fact that the average reader will not find them pertinent or in many cases "notable". This is just my perspective on this matter, not a vote to keep or delete this article, as I said my opinion is obviously biased, and is more of a assertion of what I believe are the merits of these articles that are often described as fancruft. Thanks for hearing me out. :) --Ariadoss 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to Meta. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)

This is very self-referential to Wikipedia and is not suitable for the main article space. Most information from here cites either meta or other Wikis, neither of which is generally an appropriate source of information. I would suggest moving it to the WP namespace, but this content is already there. And yes, I can see this AFD is vaguely ironic and self-referential itself (cheers strange loops!). Wickethewok 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep; wikis (including Wikipedia) are a noteworthy topic, as are the social artifacts and customs found therein. When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, citing meta or the Wikipedia namespace is entirely appropriate (for documentation of policies and such). Perhaps more reliable sources can be found, but the topic itself is noteworthy. --EngineerScotty 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, that article must be based solely upon reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. (Notice how many sources Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia both have.) Wikipedia is not a source. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article not only cites wikis, which are not reliable sources, as its sole sources, it presents a novel, never-before-published, synthesis and analysis of various philosophies espoused by some editors, a synthesis an analysis that doesn't even appear on Meta, where these various philosophies are discussed. This article is clearly original research, and does not belong in the main namespace. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does seem to lack reliable sources and thus fall under the WP:V bus. WilyD 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay. -- Koffieyahoo 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any reasons we shouldn't move this to Meta rather than outright deletion? Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support a move to Meta if this information isn't already there. Wickethewok 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to meta or to "wikipedia space" (as against "encyclopedia space"), possibly by merging into any similar piece that exists. Slightly rewritten, with less of an effort to be strictly encyclopedic, this could be a very useful explanation of part of wiki culture. Oh, and wikis are perfectly good primary sources when that is what you are writing about. - Jmabel | Talk 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta per Jmabel (apart from the perfectly good primary sources bit - I'm with Uncle G on that one). Yomanganitalk 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta with same rationale as Yomangani. I reads as if it is a social sciences theory, and as such I dont see how it is notable without academic sources. Jayvdb 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. Eusebeus 12:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Kuffar

Outdated minor "in-the-news" style article. If need be, merge with Mohammad al-Massari. -- Linesman 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Unlike almost all of the other internet non-events that get kept, this is one that is notable to me. MLA 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn per nom. Eusebeus 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is a good article, we must keep it. --PacoCrunz 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I saw this video in a class about Radical Islam. The lecturer mentioned how popular it was. 84.202.61.139 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rappers/producers are not notable and the video/song doesn't appear to have had a verifiable important or significant impact. -AED 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AED. I can't see any reason to have this article digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The song and rapper are very notable - this song featured in Australian newspapers and television reports and google results for things like "jihad rap" bring up quite a few references to it. Drett 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Per AED. I got a question for the nominator. Does the "lecturer" do "his" job? -- Szvest 23:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, who is not the anon who posted the comment at the top of the debate. I've moved it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable Macktheknifeau 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable contribution to music and socioty --Musaabdulrashid 07:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and neutral RaveenS
  • Keep Significant to history of Islamism in Western countries, especially the mututal influence of poltical Islam and Western black culture. DanB DanD 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
However, a Merge + Redirect to Mohammad al-Massari would also be fine. DanB DanD 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob TV Shows

Article is about a non-notable public access cable show. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how I can change the article so that it will be notable. The shows themselves are certainly "notable" in Rhode Island. Can you discuss this with me? corey111689@aol.com

  • Certainly, there's always room for discussion, that's what this is all about. The most important thing the article needs is Reliable Sources: if the show has been covered in the press, say so, and be specific. The bigger and more well-known the source is, the better (generally speaking). Trivial mentions (TV listings, appearing in lists of shows, etc.) don't count. I'm going to hold off on voting until I see what sort of sources can be added. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with sources and a bit of a rewrite. He's obviously one of the most notable cable access talk show hosts overall, if he's travelled to 45 states and 5 continents. I'll work on this one. -- Zanimum 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've cleaned the article up. It's now three articles (sorry), but three good small articles. Bob Venturini, Bob's Big Adventures, and An Hour with Bob. Now, if I can find sources for these articles, I can't see them harming anyone, sitting off to the side. It's perfectly clear in the articles that he is of relatively low notability, so no one will get confused, but everything that is covered is now fairly objective. -- Zanimum 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank You..... this was my first article so I wasnt exactly clear on how to do it. Looks good, Thanks.
  • Delete. Nice job on the re-writes, Zanimum. Those articles should be fine. This one should now be deleted. There's no need for a redirect or disambiguation, at least not at this location, and all of the information is covered at the appropriate places. Kafziel 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, thanks to Zanimum's work splitting into appropriate articles. Andrew Levine 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G7: seems the author doesn't want it any more either. Yomanganitalk 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, good work by Zanimum, this article is no longer necessary. Possibly speedy for housekeeping purposes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to keep. Neither arguments for or against notability stand out. Shell babelfish 07:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space - Glory Through Conquest

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 303,019 and google search delivers about 197 hits. Peephole 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Peephole 13:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - we're not a game directory. Akradecki 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- That search is not entirely valid, because it doesn't count hits that spell the title differently, like "Space: Glory Through Conquest." A more flexible search turns up over 9,000 hits. That may still be an undercount, because the article says the game is "commonly referred to simply as Space." Another search (which probably is an overcount) which tries to capture references to the company and the game without the "Conquest Through Glory" phrase, gets 55,000 hits. --Groggy Dice 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - OK, that search with 55,000 hits was apparently mostly coming from Coldfire's own site; taking them out leaves less than 1,400 hits. On the other hand, taking the site out of the search that got 9,000 hits actually increases the count to 12,000! Obviously, Google's way of counting has some quirks. Nevertheless, I'm going to oppose. The article has been around over two years before someone questioned its notability. "Major" events or fads that were "all the rage" can suddently become obscure, so I'm reluctant to take current judgment over that of editors at the time. (Just recently, I had to de-PROD Fucked Company, which then got put up for AfD!) Alexa rankings are a moving target, sites that once had a day of "glory" can fall, making it appear as if they were never notable. This makes me hesitate before throwing out all the work that has been done on the article. At the very least, I'd like to see some of the content merged with the Coldfire Studios article if it's deleted. --Groggy Dice 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Worthwhile article- This is my first comment, dunno if I'm supposed to do it this way, but whatever. Space was at one time a very popular online game with thousands of unique players. While it has since lost some players, it still has a dedicated core of 2 or 3 hundred players, along with a steady flow of new players. I don't see how this article is hurting anyone by remaining on here. The article was only meant as a way for people unfamiliar with the game be able to find some quick knowledge about the game before they dive in--User:Splat! - dedicated Space player for 5+ years 02:33, 11 August 2006 (Entered by User:72.230.7.122)
  • STRONG OPPOSE: If Wikipedia is not a game directory, then I guess the multiple categories of games should be marked for deletion, as well. There are 50+ games listed in the category "Massively Multi-Player Online Games," and that is only one category. Additionally, this COMMUNITY of people is close. The Space: Glory Through Conquest folks have surpassed the national, ethnic, and religious boundaries to form a wonderful subculture. The "Game" is a living socio-cultural artifact, and has brought people from all over the world closer in bonds of friendship (and sometimes enmity, but it is a parody of war, afterall), and thus remains an important facet of hundreds of people's daily lives. Those who are members of this special Community find it disheartening at times to be separated from it. The players are passionate about the game, each other, and their community. Newcomers are welcomed heartily, and friendly people are willing to help them transition easily into the Space culture. -User:Mistress of Mayhem, Game Admninistrator and Community member/player for almost 4 years. 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (entered by 71.193.227.97 (talk · contribs))
  • Keep Article claims it to have won two awards, which is one of the conditions for passing WP:SOFTWARE. I would advise players, however, to review the notability guidelines, as simply being a great game, while great, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. In this case, I think it does pass the line though, if the article is cleaned to conform to article guidelines (namely being an article rather than a guide)-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why delete a valid article?- Especially when so many other games are listed here as well. Space is a great social experiment as well as an online game and deserves credit for that as much as anything else. We are not a gun catalogue and yet I see countless articles detailing the finer points of many weapons. We are not an aviation handbook and yet I see many articles on aviation. We are not a tv guide and yet I see many articles on tv shows some even with future air dates. What we are is an online encyclopedia listing many, many interesting articles and to a gamer an article about a game can be very interesting. Or does Akradecki have an issue with gamers reading articles about things they are interested in? I bet he has no problem with articles that he is interested in being posted on here. The simple fact is, if you have no interest in the article you do not have to read it. Leave that to those of us who are interested, and leave the article here for those of us who are interested in it. Why alienate the gaming community by removing our articles? Is what we have to say not as valid as what you have to say? --User:Gypsy2976 Space player for 5 years and gamer for many more. 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not indicate that it subject meets any one of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE. Receiving awards is not on the list of WP:SOFTWARE, and at any rate it is supposed to have won the same award by the same website twice. Sandstein 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It was when I said that, but looks like it was removed on the 11th, without noticable opposition, so I guess it isn't now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Awards are mentioned on WP:WEB though, wich seem more relevant (it is played entierly over the web after all, not distributed as a software package). Though I guess that depends on on wether or not you consider a "game of the month" award from Multiplayer Online Games Directory to be a "well known independent award" or not. Note that while the game is currently "past it's prime" it was fairly big 3-4 years ago (as far as browser based games go), here is a snapshot of the forums back in 2001[12] snowing a great deal of activity even then, note that the forums have been wiped clean 4-5 times so you need to use the web archive to find most of it now. Just saying that with huge commercial graphical MMPOG's taking over these days, current trafic rating should be taken with a grain of salt when judging the notability of a browser based game that's been around for a good 5 years. IMHO anyway, though my bias should be obvious from a look at the article's history (in hindsight I do agree that is is probably wirtten a bit too much like a game guide though), my recomendation would be to keep it. --Sherool (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Internet explorer only game (j/k, of course) But seriously, it does not meet any of the notabililty requirements. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Nickieee 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I play browser games too, does not mean I'm gonna start articles about all of them. NN gamecruft. Macktheknifeau 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Musaabdulrashid 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I consider MPOGD's "game of the month" a notable award considering it's targeted genre of MMOs. --Ariadoss 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as failing to meet WP:V and WP:WEB. Shell babelfish 08:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDZK

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 112,717 and google search delivers about 34,800 hits. Peephole 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Can anyone please explain why articles concerning on-line games are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia? If we can understand that, then the case for deletion would make more sense. Is it a case of "using Wikipedia for commercial purposes"? If so, would that same principle not be applicable to a number of other articles related to commmercially available products (e.g. comic books)?

    Just curious.

    [Edit] Ah. I didn't see the links about "notability" prior to this. May I ask what constitues a "non-trival" publication, aside from the listed mention of newspapers/ads/etc.? Would an in-print novel constitute a "non-trivial source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) who meant "notability", rather than "suitability", I think Tonywalton  | Talk {Stan Johnson--original comment corrected to say "notability")

    • A non-trivial published work is a work that is more than a simple directory listing ("Game name: X Description: Y Author: Z"). A printed game guide written by a third party would be non-trivial, for example, as would a magazine feature article that discussed the development and marketing of the game. Please cite reviews, histories, and analyses of this game that come from sources other than the game and its authors. Uncle G 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Noted. Thank you. May I verify that a third-party novel (non-reviewed, but in print, and selling) constitutes a "non-trivial source," or is it required that the publication be about the game as a whole, as opposed to simply characters within the game? [www.cafepress.com/tdzk.61186767 Tales from Taenaria novel]

    That said, the notability criteria mentioned the winning of a third party award, which is mentioned in the "Acheivements" section of the article in question. This strikes me as sufficiently valid, but that's merely a personal opinion. {Stan Johnson)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment:A listing in a web directory is far from notable.--Peephole 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: That being said, would winning a monthly award because of said listing in web directory count as notable? Malykyn 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: With respect, that comment seems a mere matter of semantics. Who is it, in Wikipedia, that determines what constitutes "notable"? The listed criteria states "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] " Where is the line of "well-known," and who determines that? Until such guidelines can be satisfactorily established, it appears to me that the article in question meets Wikipedia's requirements for basic "notability." That said, the game did win an award through MMOPGD; it's no, mere directory listing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
            • Comment: Being game of the month at a weblisting is far from a notable award. --Peephole 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm still waiting for an answer about novels by independent authors. Per the following comment, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" I can see it going either way, based on interpretation. Still, the distributor (CafePress) is most decidedly independent of TDZK, and seems fairly "well-known."(Stan Johnson)
    • Comment: A fanfic book doesn't make a game notable imo. What would make it notable is a mention in a newspaper, reviews in gaming magazine or well known online gaming sites. --Peephole 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Again, what is the accepted definition of "well-known"? Many would argue that MPOGD is a very well known online gaming site. Without a more definitive answer, it's just a personal opinion, and that doesn't seem like a very fair appraisal. I think it should also be mentioned that MPOGD awards are given based on user votes, not the personal opinion of an editor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
        • Comment: Fair enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
        • Please point to where MPOGD provides a detailed analysis of the game. Please cite sources. Uncle G 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Keep, pending further revisions and improvements. As an active player and contributor in the TDZK community, I feel that the article could be updated to indicate notability and meet the requirements in the aforementioned policies (and soon-to-be-policies, in the case of WP:SOFTWARE). Malykyn 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Changed to a Weak Keep. Yes, there is much that could be said that makes this game notable, but, honestly, the game has not reached a level of notability where it warrants an encyclopedia entry. I do feel that this will change with the release of Nomad, however, and encourage that the article be left intact pending the addition of citations and more information. Malykyn 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I view http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf, as a non-trivial source. This is a case study of rapid group formation within TDZK, and explores how game enviornment and mechanics influence the formation of social groups. TDZK has also been studied by the Virtual Society project, and the into to that project can be found at http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf --Jerle0 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Note: No edits outside this AfD and article
    • The first is a study of a group of game players within (and outside of) the game, and only tangentially mentions the game itself. It might be a useful source for an article on symbolic cconvergence, but it isn't a useful source for an article on TDZK, since it tells us nothing about the history, development, or structure of TDZK. The second isn't actually the study of the game by Virtual Society itself, but a document saying no more than that TDZK is something that "will be studied". Until it has been studied, the WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE criteria are not satisfied by this. But I applaud the effort to cite some non-trivial published works about the game. That's exactly the sort of research that we need editors to do more of at AFD, and you are citing non-trivial works. Please find some more. Uncle G 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Peephole, you clam that winning a "game of the month award" is not notable? I would be interested to see yourself having the ability to create a game that can win such a competition. Staff and developers work hard for this game, and consequently the realise of TDZK Nomad is upcoming. This promises to bring with it a lot of unique developments, opportunities, and press. Novels such as “Tales from Taenaeria“ would not exist if the lore and physics had not been set down in the game. Such sites that list such games should also not be considered “trivial”, such sites are essential to the distribution of information about games that are not developed by large software companies, without such sites it would be near impossible for single, or small groups of developers to distribute software, and advertise their product. For such games to even get even a mention in such articles as http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf and http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf is a hard feat to achieve, there are many thousands of games out there which will never be included in this kind of study, this must consequently mean this game has some fetchers which make it unique. --Maya tekla 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD
    • Please actually read the documents that you've referred to. The second isn't a study. It is merely a document saying that there "will be" a study. Uncle G 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • When scientists announced that the Human Genome Project "will be" studying the human genetic code, that didn't make it any less notable or important as when they announced that it was complete. I think that for any scholarly group to even announce specific interest in studying it is notable enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
        • Wrong. An encyclopaedia article on the human genetic code cannot be written until after studies of it have been performed and published, just as an encyclopaedia article on a game cannot be written until after the study on that game (which no-one has so far offered a citation for, and which thus possibly was never actually done at all) has been performed and published. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • See below.
    • I'm sorry if I translated "will be" from the first article literally, meaning there will be a study, which will therefore lead to some official documentation and reports. The point still stands. --Maya tekla 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD
      • We don't write encyclopaedia articles about things that "will be" studied. We write encyclopaedia articles about things that have been studied. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe we are not referring to the actual data of the research, rather than the fact that the research is taking place and is using TDZK as a source of data. Information about the genome may not be valid until the study is done, but what we're saying is that you can't deny that the study exists even if it's not complete. That said, the ViS:Virtual Society project was completed and their findings were published November 2005. Their final summary is in Swedish only, but it can be found here: http://www.mmedu.net/isite-cache/filer/270/Slutrapport_ViS.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still uncertain about just who it is that has the actual authority to delete articles. While I understand that anyone (?) can suggest a deletion, whose opinion/interpretation of the rules is it that truly matters, and has this party been/will this party be notified concerning this issue? I'll stand by a final, authorised decision, but it's clear from the discussion that conflicting opinions and interpretations exist, and I question whether any of us discussing this are authorised to make a final pronouncement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment- I'll answer your question. The only people who can actually physically delete something are administrators. No one else has a delete button to click. That said, this page is here so that non-admins can debate the merits of the page, rather than have some guy just up and delete it (unless it meets the criteria for speey deletion, like spam or a vanity article). The admin reads the debate, and decides whether it is deleted, kept, or kept due to no consensus, which means that it can be re-proposed for deletion sooner. I'm not an admin, but look up- there's not a single "delete" written here. A lot of talking without votes, which is unusual, but I'm not exactly seing a consensus to delete. It will most likely be kept. In the meantime, go read up on the rules for AfD, it'l esplain things more thoroughly. --PresN 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Given that the first 100 or so Google results for "TDZK" are more or less all releant to TDZK, and that TDZK has a userbase of over 1800 (it has been at over 4000 in the past, and a new round has just started as far as I know). There is nothing factually incorrect about this article, nor is there any sign of bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GotenXiao (talk • contribs) Note: Only edit from this user
  • Keep; Apparently it's noteworthy enough to start a debate over. ;)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seems not to meet WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. As is, does not conform to WP:V. (Closing admin: please watch socks.) -AED 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nearly 50,000 hits and its been running since 2001.--KrossTalk 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non Notable. Macktheknifeau 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete browser games are NN. --Musaabdulrashid 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting how the Keep items have been considered sock puppetry while the 'veteran Wikipedia users' are allowed to put forward non-discussion votes. I suggest you put forward some reasons for why you think this particular article should be removed, seeing as there are some very notable browser games with tens if not hundreds of thousands of users. Adhere to your own rules, please, or be accused of hypocrisy. Aelanna Cessara 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Malykyn, Maya tekla, and GotenXiao. --Ariadoss 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached"? Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and this isn't a vote. But it's either notable or it's not, and I don't suspect much in the way of consensus will be reached any time soon; we seem to have a pretty polarised crowd, here. In the end, I would think that the Wiki Admins are the ones who will decide which opinions of notability count, and whether the article is appropriate for deletion.
  • 'I don't think that the fact that the article discusses a browser-based game is sufficient to make it non-notable. But again, that's merely an opinion. I still maintain, per "keep" comments above, that the article has met the listed "notability" criteria, even if only just.
  • 'So can we get an Admin to make a final decision? 71.32.231.224Stan Johnson.
    • You realize that the person who relisted the article is an admin, right? --Jerle0 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There is A TON of entries about web based games as you can see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiplayer_browser_games None of them meet WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, yet several titles already passed AfD voting. I don't think any of those policies should apply here, if we were to strictly follow them, then every single entry about web based games would have to be deleted. Since that isn't going to happen (most of the pages contain valuable information, especially for people resarching the subject), let TDZK entry be. It's one of biggest games on the list after all. Pelias 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I totally agree, there have been many gaming entries I've found useful that have been deleted in recent weeks, it seems to me for instance that not a single browser-based roleplaying or CRPG game will be left in Wikipedia. --Ariadoss 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poppin'

Neato song, but does it rate it's own article? This article has been speedied once already. Rklawton 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as deleted and reposted content (G4). --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment repost doesn't work for previously speeded articles. They need to go to AfD since reposting is basically a challenge to the speedy. Once an article is AfD'd then it's a whole different ballgame. Rklawton 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't think thats correct. That only applies if the article isn't still speedyable under other speedy criteria. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process. So if it was A7'ed before and nothing has been done to correct that A7 it can still be A7'ed, I believe. Syrthiss 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, if it's still A7 (etc), but the speedy nomination was for repost. But your clarification is well taken. You are quite right. Rklawton 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • how about a Speedy Redirect to Chris Whatshisname, since otherwise I'm going to delete it as recreated content (with even less info than the deleted content)? Syrthiss 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    Seconded per Syrthiss Rklawton 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As is, delete per WP:V/WP:CR. If verifiable, then merge/redirect as above. -AED 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V with reliable sources. Shell babelfish 08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin breeg

This appears to be a page about a fictonal character from a song by Iron Maiden that has developed into what appears to be a recent web hoax. BrianFG 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Trim and merge into The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Recury 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reliable sources can be found for this information. (benjaminbreeg.co.uk is a single page written and registered by an otherwise unidentified "A. Breeg", with an Alexa rating of nearly 2 million. http://www.benjaminbreeg.com is nothing more than an Iron Maiden fan's discussion board.) If enough sourced material allows for a substantial article on this supposed legend, then I'd change my vote. I'd recommend against merging any info to TRoBB unless without those same reliable sources for any material to be merged. Treat the whole thing as unencyclopedic gossip otherwise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since the article lacks any sort of reliable sources for its information; the linked websites certainly don't qualify. It seems like the whole thing is to get the name of the new Iron Maiden song out there by creating a backstory to get people talking. —LrdChaos 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree with Recury, it should be merged with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg, cos this is a perfectly good article on the matter, it just needs a new home, so to speak.--4.154.244.244 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article 'as is' until more light is shed on Benjamin Breeg. It maybe a hoax, but it maybe something real as well. Also, there's a Publius Enigma Wikipedia entry for the afforementioned Pink Floyds enigma, so there must a Wikipedia entry for Benjamin Breeg's enigma as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.201.170 (talk • contribs)
    • One bad article does not justify another one. If Publius Enigma is properly sourced, those sources justify its existence, and this article is therefore nothing like it (as it has no reliable sources). If instead that article is not properly sourced, it should go, too. Whether this article is a hoax or not is not for Wikipedians to decide. If we can't find reliable sources either for its accuracy or its hoax nature, we are not supposed to be writing about it in the first place. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of hoaxes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.202.159 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge I agree that the article should be merged with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. If I remember correctly, a previous version of the article had been written in a more speculative tone, referring to the source websites and stating clearly that the information from www.benjaminbreeg.co.uk is suspect, and possibly a deliberate enigma. This would appear to me as a much better way to present the article; the present one relays the information as fact.--Ian404 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge' Definatly merge with the Reincarnation Of Benjamin Breeg page. --[[User:UltimateDingbat|UltimateDingbat] 14:18, 13th August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until the Iron Maiden single and album are released, and then once the story is complete then Merge with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg page as a record of what was done to promote the single (If it was all fiction as seems to be belived).


  • Trim and merge - remove all the stuff that was copy-pasted (that leaves us with just the lead section). — Prodigenous Zee - 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article since there is no evidence besides a doubtful website. Furthermore, the website displays a picture from the single by the band of Iron Maiden. The coincidence of this A. Breeg fellow finding a certain painting at the same time that the single is released is evidence of a hoax. A. Breeg's picture is nothing but a nicely done version of "Eddie," which is Iron Maiden's perrenial death faced character. Delete this article entirely, and fix the Reincarnation Article to include mention of this hoax. —oemb1905 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Krovatin

Not particularly notable student author. It looks like vanity as his picture was uploaded as "Me in Bathtub" by the creator of the work. He has written a single book and directed some school plays. Doesn't look like he meets WP:BIO. Wickethewok 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, his book was published by a division of Scholastic Press, and got a starred review from Booklist and a favorable review from School Library Journal.[13] Seems like a serious (if new) young adult author. NawlinWiki 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep He's at least as notable as quite a few authors who have articles here. Dlyons493 Talk 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. That a lot of nonnotables have managed to stay on is no proper motive to keep all the cruft. --Svartalf 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Promising young writer, but not notable yet. His day will surely come. Ohconfucius 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet. Recury 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete strong possibility it breaches WP:AUTO. Even if not, nn writer. --Guinnog 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and Merge to Ted Kennedy. Shell babelfish 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Reggie Kennedy

Originally, User:Litclass tried to list this article for deletion with the explanation "noteworthy?". I repaired the AfD listing. The article is extremely short, and I'm not sure whether the wife of Edward Moore Kennedy is independently notable. For now, no vote from me. --Huon 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - her husband's more than notable, but I see no assertion thereof for her. BigHaz 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been expanded, and now describes the advocacy group of which she is president as well as her academic background. I think that she is independently notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Her only real claim to notability is as president/founder of Common Sense about Kids and Guns. That gets 262 Ghits which seems fairly marginal to me. Dlyons493 Talk 12:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wife of someone well known who has done little or nothing of note. nn. Marcus22 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into her husband's article. --Svartalf 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep she has founded and managed a well notable advodacy group which deserves our respect. Article should definitely be expanded, telling the story of how she came to start the group (its good) 152.163.100.73 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Svartalf Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect with Edward Moore Kennedy. -AED 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is a prominent contemporary Tulane Law School alum, and while some may consider being a prominent advocate for children unimportant, I consider her work notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.30.116 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aziz Kristof

WP:BIO Subject not notable Ohconfucius 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. He has a certain following, and authors of books on enlightenment don't get the same sales figures as cookbook authors. I think that he's notable in Buddhist circles. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Comment Has three books with an established publisher, gets about 400 distinct Ghits. Seems to have a niche. Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, unless article can be expande to conform to WP:BIO standards.--Svartalf 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties. The fact he has published books does not make him notable, the books fail WP:BK guidelines for lacking reviews or awards. The fact he may be notable in Buddhist circles only begs the questions of verification and documentation, both of which are entirely lacking. I verify 357 Ghits for "aziz kristof" (400, whatever), but at the point where people are quibbling notability for 1 million-plus Ghits websites, I scarcely am impressed by three-digits worth. Lastly, having a "niche" is not part of meeting WP:BIO. Tychocat 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

  1. Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (That has been given)
  2. Sales numbers - You have to consider this with the usual number of Buddhist books and not compare this with Harold Robbins or Dan Brown. Any how, we can always contact the publishers. Unless we hear from the publishers that the book does not sell, WP:V of non-notability does not ariseDoctor Bruno 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OOPs or WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim
  • Delete per Tychocat, couldn't have said it better myself. --Wine Guy Talk 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of my high school teachers wrote a couple of books, too, but that doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia either. Mabybe Aziz Kristof will become notable some day, but that time hasn't come. -/- Warren 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nandesuka 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aajonus Vonderplanitz on the gournds of his being a published author. Publication details list all his books as published by Carnelian Bay Castle Press. A Google search for the publisher returns 39 hits, all of which are for Vonderplanitz' books. The company appears to have no website and operates out of a PO box in Santa Monica. Which leaves us with what looks very much liek a self-published author who once appeared as a featured nutter on Ripley's Believe It Or Not, which single appearance does not, in my book, amount to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: Same person who requested first deletion. --DJCupples 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Powers 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Authoring a book is no guarantee of encyclopedic notability. And this is an obscure self-published author Bwithh 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Aajonus is not self-published and self-published is the main arguement made for asking to be deleted. And there is 324 hits on google, not 39. Go to this link http://www.buildfreedom.com/dietanc.htm a reprint of an article from "Whole Life Times" stating that a friend of his published book. --DJCupples 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's two previous edits were to the article under discussion and to the first deletion discussion. Powers 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's now up to 41 [14] but definitely not 324; Carnelian Press gets two, only one in English. I can't find any evidence of anyone else published by the same press, and one of the books is listed on Amazon as plastic comb binding. This does not look like a real publisher; the distinction between self-publsihed and published by a friend is probably not a significant one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Does the WP:BIO require that a publisher have published more than one author in order to be a legitimate independent publisher of author with bio on Wiki? Is a book less significant because it is spiral bound (plastic comb)? Amazon list 5537 books with plastic comb [15] of which 2690 are new [16].Amazon list 75685 spiral-bound books [17]. The argument that one of the books has different binding is weak. So friends completing a business transaction means it not a legitimate business deal? The test for self publishing is whether the author paid for publishing or not. Here is the name of the person claiming to be the publisher [18] and here is a current link where you can contact him (also author's publicity contact)[19] and find out if he was the one who took the financial risk of the publishing the book or the author.DJCupples 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Essentially there is no difference between a book published by a friend who has published nothing else of any significance, and a self-published book. Very few self-published books are notable, if you look at Robert Gunther you will see that we note his books are self-published but his notability does not rest on his books; if it did we would probably not have an article on him either. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a topic of significant general interest relating to raw paleolithic diets (raw vegetable and animal foods diets). The information is important to those researching these types of diets. --Martha at Earthaven 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's first edit. Powers 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the article is about the person not the publisher and this one gets 23500 hits [20] that looks notable to me Yuckfoo 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:BIO ... sorry he should go.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is about a person who has c.25,000 hits on Google, and there appear to be several Internet groups on Yahoo and elsewhere following his "Primal Diet". If Wikipedia can have wiki articles on vegan diet gurus and the like, then I see no reason why this guy shouldn't have one too. Everyone should be covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs)
  • Loki0115 (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Apparently self-published (or by a publisher with no other authors, anyway), which makes his author credentials doubtful. However, he seems to get a lot of attention around the web from a lot of different people. Seems to meet the notability guidelines based on that. Fan-1967 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry highly suggest vanity. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — mboverload@ 08:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He certainly has made a widely recognized contribution to his particular field: he founded what might be the most radical diet in the western world. His books (whoever publishes them) are clearly being reviewed by independent groups and people. Even [[22]], a permaculture resort in hawaii, lives entirely on his Primal Diet. I know that's not listed as a criterion for notability but it should count for something. The number of pages returned in a simple google search of him, as well as the nature of those hits (many being interviews and book reviews) suggests that he is not too "obscure" for wikipedia. Whether he is a "nutter" or not really doesn't affect notability. [Applewhite] has a page. He's a "nutter". Aajonus Vonderplanitz, or his supporters, are not invading wikipedia to try to gain exposure. His article should remain because it's easy to imagine a scenario in which someone would hear of him and then look him up on wikipedia to learn more about him. Robert O'Brien 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • robertobrien (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD
  • In fact I have edited wikipedia several times without registering for a username and have been using wikipedia regularly for awhile. Furthermore, it should be about the strength of my argument, not the extent of my contributions Robert O'Brien
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RockWay Press

DeleteAttacK page that may well be true but is all supposition. What WP is not is a consumer protection site. Spartaz 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi My name is Persi and I would just like to ask if you have been following the discussion regarding the deletion of the article on RockWay Press. I have provided several very valid sources and it would mean a lot to potential authors who surf for information on this publisher to be able to read this article. If you have visited the sites that link from the article, you would see a lot of discussion from people like me who have been burned by this publisher and by scam publishers in general. I realize Wikipedia isnt a consumer protection site -per se - but it does have the visibility needed to help people learn more about this company in particular and about scam publishers in general. Preditors and Editors is the most reputable site in the publishing world regarding rating publishers. This weekend, they gave Rockway their red "Not Recommended" rating. However if you surf the name Rockway on Google, you will find that there is no connection from P and E to Rockway listed -- even if you surf hundreds and hundreds of listings. However, Wikipedia is the first listing on page two. There are thousands of people out there writing every day -- thinking they have what it takes to be the next Dan Brown. The publishing world is tough to break into - and when a company like Rockway offers what seems to be an easy entry, many people go for it - only to be burned big time. When a person writes, that work is their intellectual property. It is akin to giving birth to actually write a book. And it is unfortunate that people like Rockway can so easily take away not only your dreams but your intellectual property as well. Google Rockway, please. Note how high up on the listing the Wikipedia page is. Think about innocent victims all over the world who just might see that listing and read it before they send any money or sign anything. Realize that the article here also offers these people the ability to link to sites like Preditors and Editors where more information to help them is available. Not too long ago, I was a neophyte like that -- I had NO idea what Preditors and Editors even was. I came within a breath of signing away a very good book I put my life into to Rockway. Since then, I have joined with others who work within the industry to bring these scams to light. Please let us have the chance to reach more people through Wikipedia. Your positive comments would be much appreciated. This is not a personal matter -- if you read the Absolute Write site, you will see that only today a new victim posted. There are more and more every day. Thanks for listening. Persi --Persiphone hellecat1 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as attack page on RockWay Press. Written from the POV of someone who dislikes the organization. Kalani [talk] 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Absolutely NOT true == written by someone who defends authors and helps to keep them from fallig into scams. People deserve to be notified when some scam exits. Not a single word is supposition. You can go to the sites mentioned in the article and read for yourself that this publisher is mentioned in reputable Writers Beware Sites. You can also go to their very own site and see that the 2004 winners of their contest are still awaiting thier prizes. There is not one single word of supposition in here. I am a reputable free lance author myself and I do not write supposition. Persi

  • Comment:In which case properly source your article rather than leaving people to go and look for it themselves. There are no proper sources shown on the article. See WP:RS--Spartaz 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In which case the question becomes, "Is this a notable enough scam to be included for that reason?" --Brianyoumans 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent confirmation is cited. I looked for something that confirms the editor's opinion of this company, but couldn't find anything to cite. However, having looked at the Co's website I would think their opinion is correct. I don't see any reason why "notable" scams shouldn't be listed - providing the information is correctly cited. --Richhoncho 21:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I know nothing about book publishing, I do know a little about music publishing. "Artistic" contests any description send a shiver through me, but then again, there are bona fide song contests, so I assume the same in book publishing. The owner of this business has had books published by reputable publishers. The citations in the article are from forums, so I would discount them for Wikipedia purposes, as the likelihood is that they are disgruntled authors (and like the music biz, I bet there's millions of them!). The claimed fact that the owner is a coffee bar waitress doesn't hold water - using that as a criteria would make people in the film industry redundant! Missed deadlines are not enough to prove a scam, otherwise I shall be listing my rail company. As for the quotes from the Rockway site, they could be changed tomorrow. Having said all that, I have every sympathy with the creator of this page - I have my own website to expose the more dubious practices at the shallow end of the music business, so I know how difficult it is the pin facts on the matter. For this article to hold water I'd like to see a legal judgment cited. --Richhoncho 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I absolutely will source it now. If you did look at the company's site, you would notice that there are NO books published among the winners of the 2004 and 2005 contests. There are literally thousands of would-be authors world-wide trying anything just to get published and they turn towards these contests and small publishers as a way to get into the book business. I will cite now.


I believe the article is properly sourced now and represents an invaluable tool to potential authors as an example of the type of publishers to avoid.

  • Comment Perhaps the right thing to do would be to turn this article into a more general article entitled something like "Writing Contests", which would point out that many publishers run such things and that while they can encourage starting writers, they are frequently scams and rarely lead to real publication. And then RockWay Press and such could be redirected there. --Brianyoumans 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Richhoncho - she has had books published - by someone else - doesnt it seem odd that a publisher uses someone else to publish her own books while she is unable to publish anyone else's?? When you win a contest in 2004, one would think that by the eighth month of 2006 you would have recieved your prize. This is a serious problem for authors who no longer own the rights to their own works and cannot even try and get them published elsewhere - just because they sent 25 dollars to Rockway and entered a contest. The forums I linked show comments from authors. Preditors and Editors is not a forum. It is a well known site where authors go to verify agents, publishers and contests. They have spoken out against Rockway and advised authors not to use them. In the publishing business, that holds a lot of weight. True, lateness for deadlines isnt necessarily a sign of a scam, however late by over two years certainly isnt a good sign is it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 02:52, 6 August 2006 Persiphone hellecat1 (Talk | contribs)}}

  • Further comment. As I say, I have every sympathy, if I was an author I wouldn't touch this company with a ten-foot. It's not I don't appreciate your concern for authors, It's just that I am convinced that WP is not the place to do it in this instance. Preditors and Editors only say "might" which leaves us with the possibility of slander libel, <of course>. Are you saying that Rockway retains copyright on all submissions? BTW A positive article on Predators & Editors might have a better effect for your purposes.--Richhoncho 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The above post was amended by the author. My silly mistake! --Richhoncho 11:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, If you read their rules for contest submissions, ALL entries must be accompanied by a signed contract, making ALL entries - whether they win or not ... technically their property Oddly enough, this article has been on WP for quite a while. It was taken down when one of my kids decided to use my account to get into that thing that happened on TV the other day. Before that, there was never so much as a word of comment on the page.

  • Comment. I didn't see where they claimed copyright, what I did read was "The copyright will be registered in the author's name, and all subsidiary rights (i.e., book club, foreign rights, film, stage, etc.) remain with the author." Totally bizarre, in my opinion, but not the same as you say.
  • By the way can you sign your posts on this page, just click the signature button just above the editing page. Thanks. --Richhoncho 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you ... If you go to the "submissions package requirements section of the contest guidelines at http://rockwaypress.com/annual_writing_contests.htm#contents, you will see that ALL entries must be submitted with a signed and notarized contract - making even losing entries their property. Extremely bizarre -- totally unprofessional. That means that they can simply declare no entry "worthy" of first place and yet retain legal custody of all entries. This is one of the issues currently being discussed widely among the publishing industry and one of the reasons people are being warned about this company and this contest in particular. There are way too many innocent victims of these contests. Sure, 25 to 35 dollars isnt a lot when its one entry,but consider hundreds of entries - from as far away as Au., and it adds up. Also consider that people outside of America have very little chance of fighting this legally. It's hard enough for legal action from one state to another and nearly impossible for a would - be author in Au. to fight this. This is why I am publishing in as many locations as I possibly can so that it gets seen and read. Wikipedia is a logical choice. It has high visibility. Incidently no where did Preditors and Editors use the word "night" . Their entry for Rockway under publishers reads "Not recommended. A publisher. Site features good information about publishing business that writers should know. Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors." That is pretty clear. And their entry under Contests reads "RockWay Press 2005 International Writing Competitions: Charges fee. See the web site for full details. While this publisher has earned a Truly Useful Site Award from P&E, P&E does not endorse their competition." I think that pretty well indicates that Preditors and Editors, a well known and reputable site has done their homework and made a responsible decision to post the negative listing. They, too have to consider liability and they have heard from RockWay authors and decided to go all the way to list RockWay as "Not Recommended." The owner of that site is well known in the Publishing Industry. His name and phone number are listed. Certainly if he was unsure about this decision, he would have said something less specific. I think that certainly explains why a Wikipedia listing is justified. Thanks for your interest and your dialogue ... it is certainly helping me in my fight against this company. Only two months ago, RockWay was still recommended by P and E -- I have fought hard to get very frightened RockWay authors who have been threatened if they spoke out to to step forward and write to P and E with their experiences, earning Rockway first the "Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors" part of the listing and finally this week the "Not recommended was added." I am proud of my efforts. Incidently, my knowledge of this scam first came about when I very nearly signed a RockWay contract myself. A book written by me was accepted by them and I was thrilled until I read their contract and retracted my book before she got her claws into it. I thank my Creator for that every single day. Others are not as fortunate as me. But I hope some will learn about the publishing business from this and about RockWay specifically. Thank you. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI - New information has been added to the page at Absolute Write == another author who is being harassed by Rockway has surfaced and has posted her story there. I think it should be very clear what kind of company this is and how important it is to protect would-be authors from them. Please help spare others from this kind of abuse. I refer you to page two of this thread and the posts of a Susan Dhttp://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=708. Thanks again. Persi--Persiphone 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Richhoncho -- Could you please point out the libleous remarks to me in the article? Quite honestly I see none.

li·bel audio (lbl) KEY NOUN:

 1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
 2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Since I have documented everything said to be true according to other sources, how can anything here be lible? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia -- a source of information for others. What information could be more pertinent to people than assisting them in making decisions? The number of elephants in the world or that the publisher they are considering sending their life's work to isn't what they claim to be? Serious question --Persiphone 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I can't help thinking that you are being alittle obsessive about this. At the end of the day we keep or delete this article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not by the amount of energy that the discusion generates. How about you read WP:WEB to see the standards that are expected for a notable internet site. Since its a company you could also see WP:CORP. WP:NOTABILITY is an excellent read. The article is unencyclopedic and as I said earlier WP:NOT a consumer protection site. Please try to calm down a frame your arguments in the context of the policies I have listed for you. Thanks. --Spartaz 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the policies and I know that after five days, there is a decision based on a consensus of opinion. And I cant help but wondering about your interest either. Your profile states you are new and yet you've been lurking here 6 months and yet you feel you have the right to determine what is unencyclopedic. Are the listings for Random House, Harper Collins, Doubleday and Little Brown also unencyclopedic? They're publishers too. You use the term "We" -- is that a royal "We" or are you Wikipedia? Do you have any knowledge of the publishing industry to make a decision about this article? Authors are funny people. We do the research, put our heart and soul into what we write and along comes someone who offers no credentials for his opinion but has the right to get an article deleted just because he says so. I find that a little bizarre and I would say that I am not the obsessive one here. I have simply done as the rules for deletion say and done my best to justify this article in an effort to make you understand and form a more educated opinion. It seems you are the only one who seems to have a problem with this article and I just want to know why it offends you. I have offered more than enough evidence and clearly justified everything the article says. I have also asked is not Wikipedia not a place for people to come for information, and is this information not as important as the number of elephants in the world. I have also said this article existed before for a very long time with absolutely no issues until it had to be re-instated. That's apparently when you discovered it and decided to tag it for deletion based on absolutely nothing. I deal with authors every day who are harmed by Rockway and others like them. You dont. Yet you seem to believe that somehow it is only your opinion that matters. Why is that? I am not trying to get into an arguement here, I simply want to know why the deletion of this article is such an important issue to you and on what grounds you have the right to say so. So far you have said nothing except that you viewed it as an "attack". I have justified the facts with sources proving it isnt an attack but merely information published to assist authors in making responsible decisions regarding publishers- one in particular. This was an experiiment. I have many other publishers I had intended to write articles about and link - each with a similar story. Wikipedia is high notice -- it gets attention. When you google a topic, the Wikipedia listing is right there at the top. Wouldnt it seem to you that would be a good thing for authors to be able to see? After all, words are our bread and butter. I simply want this listing to stay. I worked hard on it and did my homework, as I always do when I write, and someone simply comes along and for no reason at all says, I think it shouldnt be there, and I want to know why such an opinion as yours matters and holds more weight than the work of an author publishing a well researched article. If that is obsession in your eyes, so be it. In my eyes, someone who randomly selects an article and decides it should be deleted with no information to back up their opinion is the obsessive one. This page is here for the purpose of explanation and discussion and that is just what I am doing. Unfortunately, I know no other authors who are registered Wikipedia people to come here and express their opinions. They read Wikipedia only and the information regarding deletion clearly states if they register now, "new" people's opionions don't count. Where do you stand on that? Your profile states you are new. --Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)--Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment (too complex to be called a vote). If "Preditors and Editors" deserves an article (which it may very well), and "RockWay Press" deserves mention there, then redirect. If "Preditors and Editors" qualifies as a reliable source, then keep only those paragraphs sourced there. Otherwise, delete under WP:LIVING as it relates to Alexandria/Sherri Szeman. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Reiterating, delete under WP:LIVING unless the allegations and the analysis are sourced. I think you've done a reasonably good job of sourcing the allegations, but not the analysis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2006 (U


I am trying very hard to understand your comments. I have added an article for Preditors and Editors, and I have cross referenced them. However I do not understand the part about WP:LIVING. I read the information and I'm not sure at all I understand it. I am not aware of doing anything that put it in that section. If you would kindly advise me how to proceed it would be most helpful. I would be interested in adding other articles regarding the publishing industry and just want to make sure I'm doing it right. I appreciate your reading my comments and taking them into consideration, but I require additional assistance. I am also not sure I understand the difference between sourcing the allegations and not the analysis. Please explain and I wil do what I can to correct it. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING applies because you've (quite properly, IMHO), identified RockWay Press with its founders. Hence, any derogatory comments must be carefully sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the founder's name from the article. Further information can easily be obtained by going to the link to her site, correct? So perhaps her name isnt needed here. Might that not simplify the issue a bit? Thank you for your advice, I am finding this very interesting and a very challenging write. --Persiphone 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. In accordance with WP:BOLD I have nearly completely re-written the article. I have only kept or added items which are verifiable. However it is still a disparagement article and Rockway Press would be fully entitled to have the article removed without any reference to this AfD discussion. I'll let other editors decide this one. --Richhoncho 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Excellent re-write, but I still don't see RockWay Press as notable. Article still seems as if the only reason it was written was to disparage the subject. Delete on grounds of non-notability and attack. SWAdair 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SWAdair. The company appears completely non notable. Resolute 04:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed w/ SWAdair. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, A6 as attack page. Regardless of the rambling defenses of the article that verge frequently into ad hominem attacks on the commentators, it was plainly intended to be an attack page ... and this article and the AfD discussion constitute the creator's sole contributions to Wikipedia. However cleaned up, it still is one. RGTraynor 07:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor's well-made case. Eusebeus 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy. Even once cleaned up and made NPOV, it will still be non-notable. eaolson 15:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, despite author's noble intentions to warn others about what may appears to be a scam. Bur WP is not a consumer warning service. There are websites, such as Preditors & Editors that do this job nicely.
  • Delete' - regardless of whether Rockway press is scam or not, it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP anyways. -- Whpq 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above... regardless of whether this is an attack page, there is still no evidence that this press meets WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Nickieee 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete makes no claim of notability, as well as devoting half its content to attacks. Musaabdulrashid 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the substantial editor of the last edit I have read the comments above and will add my delete in for good measure. However, it does strike me that those that merely considering it an attack page have slightly missed the point - an attack page should be deleted if not verified, in this case I have verified from primary and secondary sources. If disparagement is a reason for deletion here then every listing at WP that is here merely because the subject is a murderer, accused terrorist. pedophile etc should go too, for the exactly the same reasons. RockWay, in itself is certainly not notable, but there is a large industry selling "talent contests" who are no more than scams, and because those that pay their money haven't lost the house, it doesn't ever become "public news." - which was the reason for my getting involved here. however, there are valued, legitimate talent contests too, so an article Writing Contests are bad just wouldn't work. Thanks for your time everybody. --Richhoncho 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Redirect to Preditors and Editors, as it's mentioned there. No vote as to whether it should be deleted, first. "Devoting half its content to attacks." is not a reason to delete if those attacks are properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

comment - where did I say it was created as an attack page? I said it was created as a warning for potential submissions --Persiphone hellecat1 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not on the face of it, but however much it's been toned down from the shrill original, the creator of the article admits it was intended as an attack page. Regardless of the sourcing or any proofs proffered, that's a prima facie, black-letter ground for deletion. [comm[User:RGTraynor|RGTraynor]] 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The truer it is the less notable is the subject. WP:NOT. What's left seems to still be an attack page. Too bad it was not speedied. :) Dlohcierekim 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basilisks in fantasy fiction and games

Unencyclopedic laundry list of appearances, better summarised in main Basilisk article. Percy Snoodle 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, I have no idea what the editor who deprodded this was thinking. --ForbiddenWord 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and cleanup. A full list like this doesn't really belong Basilisk. Get rid of "it should be noted" and combine some paragraphs, and you have a perfectly decent article. Stilgar135 07:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by "better summarised in main article" I didn't mean that it would be better to merge it there; rather that the summary there is sufficient. There's no need for this list in any article. Percy Snoodle 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Petition rejected Copious material should be segregated from the main article, lest it become swamped. - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Reading again, are we saying that the article should be deleted without being merged? If so, Accepted. - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Basilisk. --Gray Porpoise 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Basilisk per Gray Porpoise. However, the amount of merged material should be severely limited. --Nlu (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Basilisk says merge. This stuff wouldn't seem too crufty there since it's a fictional concept anyway, and can illustrate how it the creature is of continued notability. In addition, the main article can establish context for this material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see that there's anything to merge into the main article as there is already an adequate section there covering this. -- Whpq 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gray Porpoise. This is much more detailed than the existing section, and contains verifiable information that should not be discarded. Basilisks are fantasy critters that have been used for a long time in many notable works. Neither article as it stands now is excessively long. Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 17:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This kind of thing almost makes me wish we still had subpages. On the one hand it's a bit on the crufty side to stand on it's own, then again the alternative is to have the main article on a mythological creature overrun with game or movie references (see for examle Chakram two paragraphs of the history of the real weaon, then a 30+ point "movie and game apperance" list (everyting from Xena to Warcraft 3 heroes though Wonder Woman's tiara and Oddjob's hat...)). Merging with the main Basilisk article would be doing it a disservice IMHO, as this kind of things have a way of growing our of controll and take over the article. Better overall to keep in in a seperate list-ish article where people can put all theyr helpfull references to various versions of the Basilisk from various games, books and movies without "diluting" the main article and getting into revert wars and whatever over there, simmilar to the Dragon/List of dragons or Zombie/Zombies in computer and video games solutions. --Sherool (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illusions of immortality

possible vanity, I did get two google hits in the first few pages that were relevant...but they were on the 2nd page or lower. The link to the award doesn't show any award that I can see, and I'm not sure that an award from that site is sufficient criteria for notability. I figured I'd try to get more eyes on this, I could be wrong.-- Syrthiss 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I poked around a bit looking for the award and was rewarded with a massive number of popups, so if it's there it's hiding. Without the award, there's no notability, and I'm not sure there would be even with it. BigHaz 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn per nom and WP:WEB. I think that the "award" is something like the fourth best-reviewed video on that day. --David Mestel(Talk) 11:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all flash cartoons. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep There is more valid info in the article now.
Comment there's a little more information, yes, but none of it really asserts notability per WP:WEB. BigHaz 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain how this isnt a valid article
There's nothing "invalid" about it. It's just that articles on online things need to be on subjects which live up to WP:WEB. In the case of this article, has the animation been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? Not that anyone can see. Has it won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation? Again, not that anyone can see (one comment above deals with the nature of the award the animation is credited with, and it's neither well-known nor independent). Is it distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators? Well, the site seems to be independent of the creators, but it's not well-known. Therefore, it isn't sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion. BigHaz 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, newgrounds features this work, including, but not limited to, Newgrounds [23], Addicting Clips[24], Flash Ring[25], Disaster Labs Studios (An Independent website featuring many popular webcartoons) [26] and even the original series was jokingly lampooned on something awful [27]. As evidenced by many of these sites, they aren't sponsered in any way by Paul Femiak. Saying that this cartoon is invalid is like saying Salad Fingers or Numa Numa are "worthless" because they are featured on the extremely popular and selective flash uploading site Newgrounds. Deleting this article would both be an insult to all flash cartoons as well as a loss to the entire wikipedia community. All the hard work in making this wiki would have to be redone without any help at all. Consider this before you delete it. In all senses, it works with the WP:WEB

Awards Won

[28] Awful Link Of The Day [29] Fourth Place Award

The awards side of things doesn't impress me in the slightest, as neither of them are "well known and independent". They're probably independent, but they're far from well-known. Fourth place by some standards applied to animations uploaded or reviewed (hard to tell from the link) that day isn't a well-known or independent award. Neither is being the "link of the day" at another site. As regards the well-known and indepedent site, I'll leave that to someone more versed in internet lore. The comparison to Numa Numa is not as impressive as you may think, either, as it would easily qualify via other sections of WP:WEB - the fact that it exists at Newgrounds isn't going to count against it. It also doesn't work in "all senses" with the standards we're citing, as it hasn't been the subject of publications independent of the site itself. BigHaz 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Explain?
      • Explain what, exactly? The remarks about the awards? Firstly, I'd contend that an animation which wins "Fourth Place for today" has hardly won a significant award. The same goes for something which wins "Link of the Day". Think about it - is a local "Battle of the Bands" trophy the same value as a Grammy? I should hope not. The remarks about the publications? One of the standards of WP:WEB is that the animation would need to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I see no proof that it has been that, so it fails that part of the test and therefore your claim that "in all senses, it works with the standard" is false. The comments about Numa Numa? Without getting into too much detail right now since we're talking about this animation rather than anything else, Numa Numa is substantially more well known than this animation is. At no point is this AfD saying that "all internet phenomena must be deleted from Wikipedia" or anything like that. What it's saying is that there are standards, "Illusions of Immortality" doesn't live up to those standards, so it should be deleted. It's nothing personal. BigHaz 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a sad day indeed for wikipedia. This cartoon is a sensation and will only keep growing. Even if you delete it now, for ucalled for reasons, you will find yourself in pain as you do not have this article anymore.
If it'll keep growing in popularity, then you'll be more than welcome to recreate the page later on when it has. Just copy the text into a file on your computer and as soon as it meets those standards we've been talking about, bring it back online. BigHaz 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A private company is making a toyline right now. Pictures are on the main page. Is the phenominon big enough?
Pictures are nowhere to be seen, and neither is any information about the toyline or the company making it. BigHaz 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
They are there, look deeper friend, look deeper
They're not on the article itself (which is where they should be if you want this to be incontrovertibly notable). Neither are they at any of the external links when clicked. If they exist - and they may well - the links should be clearly marked. The fact that they aren't and don't lead to what you're claiming is further proof of a lack of notability. BigHaz 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The only claim to notablility is the fact that it won an award. The award won was for 4th place for an award given every day. eaolson 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and per crystal balling. Also, being a member of Something Awful, I can tell you that being the "Awful Link of the Day" is not an award in any way. It's basically a daily link submitted by a forum member or site visitor mocking shoddy work. --Wafulz 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wafulz. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the awards refrenced fall far short of what is needed. Something Awful ink of the day doesn't cut it -- Whpq 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BigHaz and all others above. --Kinu t/c 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neely Fuller Jr.

Non-notable person, non-verifiable. Delete.See WP:NN, WP:V Cognos 18:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable theorist for Afro-American studies/politics. True, his 500-odd google hit result is mainly from independent media/amateur afro-american radical websites and so on[30]. Only 7 hits on a Google Books[31]. Only 3 hits on Google Scholar[32]. He also only gets 8 hits from a Factiva news & magazine database run. But this shows that the issue here is not verifiability. That leaves the issue of encyclopedic notability. One of the Factiva hits is a 1990 article[33] from that well-known hiphop fanzine, The Washington Post which describes controversial psychiatrist Francis Cress Welsing (and her 1970 anti-white paper "Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)") as well as Neely Fuller and his "Textbook for Victims of White Supermacy" as being officially cited (in the advance press relations and the album credits) as "influential inspirations" for Public Enemy's controversial album Fear of a Black Planet. Public Enemy's "director of enemy relations" (i.e. director of press/public relations) is quoted as describing Welsing and Fuller as the two most controversial race theorists in America today, responsible for "some of the strongest and most relevant writing done on racism, raciality, oppression and other race issues." (If you have access to a news database you can pull up the whole article. Otherwise you'll have to pay a few bucks to the WaPo to see it online) This connection, plus the limited but verifiable level of attention given to Fuller by Afro-American radicals is sufficient enough for encyclopedic notability, in my deletionist opinion. Both the Fuller and Welsing articles need updating to note this link to Public Enemy, and also a general cleanup. The Fear of a Black Planet album article should also note the links. Bwithh
It's not just the influence on Public Enemy, but as I said, it's the indications that he is a significant figure in radical African-American discourse Bwithh 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
But there is no evidence that he is a significant figure in radical African-American discourse - compare e.g. Ron Karenga. All we have evidence of is the fact that someone in Public Enemy thought he was.Cognos 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability hasn't been established for the guy but this is a case where an article on the book mught be justified. BlueValour 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not convinced that he or his book are sufficiently notable or influential. -AED 21:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The man's work is extremely influential, as mentioned below. He is still a highly active and influentual figure in African American intellectual circles. If you ask me, deleting the one entry on Fuller only validates the arguments he has made about racism/white supremacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.39.4 (talk • contribs)

The preceding comment was incorrectly placed. As such, I have moved it here. Srose (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... accusations like that are not constructive. If you could help come with proof of the man's influence, that would be useful Bwithh 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete simply non-notable. Eusebeus 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus. 1ne 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shell babelfish 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Media Center

Delete Neologism. AlistairMcMillan 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Front Row. hateless 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Change that to Keep/Merge. Mac Media Center seems to have been established as the name for software for the Mac that emulates Windows Media Center. The fact that iTheater and CenterStage both call themselves "mac media center" suggest it is a new generic term for that class of software. I would suggest the page can be merged into Media center, but that's a merge discussion outside of AFD. hateless 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes CenterStage and iTheater use the term, does that change the fact that it is a neologism? Don't we have a policy against creating pages about neologisms? AlistairMcMillan 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The policy is Avoid Neologisms. How else are you going to explain a new class of software without using a neologism? hateless 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
          • By using something that isn't a neologism, like media center. Note that Windows Media Center is just a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Then you have something that can be moved or merged, not AFD'd. Besides, the neologism rule is usually used against articles that are about neologisms themselves, see WP:NEO. hateless 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
              • You do realise the article is just composed of four sentences and two of them are not even really about "Mac Media Centers". And "Mac Media Center" is a neologism, if you can find a secondary source (while WP:NEO says we need) I'd be very surprised. AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with media center. The more general article is surprisingly brief; it could contain separate lists of media centers for each platform, including Xbox and PlayStation.Jayvdb 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as author requests deletion (G7) and insufficiently notable (A7). --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European election law association

Delete. Hoax. Vanity. The European election law association doesn't consist of "over 200 academics and election law experts from over 80 leading universities and research institutions". It consists only of one person (Jurij Toplak). Yellowbeard 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Hoax. Kill it. --PresN 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - You claim it is a hoax. I don't know on what is your decision based. Please join the Eurela listserv at eurela@lists.ucla.edu and you will be able to meet all the people involved and read the network's news. Contact the association's details if you wish. See the list of universities at the http://www.eurela.org/index.php?/pages/about.html . For the list of names contact eurela@eurela.org J.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Took out the work 'leading' from the first sentence as it might be a vanity. everything else seems ok.153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Keep - Nobody has disputed the article since July 28. Nobody emailed eurela in order to check the proofs of its existence and membership. As said, it would be a pleasure to show them to anyone. Since nobody contacted me or the network and nobody continued to argue for the deletion of this page I suggest the case to be closed and the article to be kept. 153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Delete. I doubt that eurela is more than a website by Jurij Toplak. If J really has "proofs of its existence and membership" then he should show them. Yellowbeard 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Yellowbeard: I scanned eight of the 200 membership applications (although they were not supposed to be public) and publishd them online in order to show you they do exist: www.volitve.si/s103.jpg www.volitve.si/s104.jpg www.volitve.si/s105.jpg www.volitve.si/s106.jpg www.volitve.si/s107.jpg www.volitve.si/s108.jpg www.volitve.si/s109.jpg www.volitve.si/s110.jpg

If you still doubt I can send you all 200 applications via email. I can also invite you to the mailinglist or to one of the events. If you will still doubt after that, I give up :( Topjur01 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It seems there is no more discussion needed. Someone close this and remove the AFD text. 164.8.4.123 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure where this hoax accusation is coming from, as my cursory perusal of google results turned up this CV from an emminent political scientist that mentions his membership in the organization. I think the real discussion that should happen here is about notability. I request relisting so that it can happen.--Chaser T 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment In response to 164.8.4.123's question on my talk page, one of the admins monitor AfD will take care of closing and relist as necessary. We can start talking about notability now. The applicable guideline, WP:ORG, hasn't been approved by the community yet, but it would require some third-party coverage of the organization, which is pretty similar to our existing verifiability policy. That being said, we have a leader from the organization participating in this AfD. If there is any third-party or press coverage, I'm sure they are aware of it and can point it out to us. But until that happens, I'd have to still say delete. I wouldn't be surprised to see this relisted to give you some more time.--Chaser T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something changes.--Chaser T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I checked the notability on Google. The association publishes European Election Law News and this publication gives over 15.000 hits on Google. Moreover, it is cited by emminent political scientists on their webpages - Arend Lijphart (an undisputed authority on elections and former president of APSA) and Matthew Søberg Shugart of University of California are just two of them.The Association has been recognized in official documents by the governments of Azerbaijan (http://www.cec.gov.az/en/5millimajlisre2006/international%20observers.doc ) and Slovenia (http://www.arrs.gov.si/sl/rezultati/06/inc/rezult-vabljena-1-rok-06.pdf ). It has been mentioned in several media where the name has been translated into German, Croatian, Azeri, or Slovenian language - see for instance http://www.mladina.si/dnevnik/53379/ ). 194.165.113.151 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's true, but the first publication just lists the organization. Though I couldn't find it in the second document, I expect it just lists it like the others. Of the 15,000 google results, there are six unique ones, none of which look particularly helpful. I'm still not seeing it. Perhaps newspaper coverage? By the way, if this is the same person behind the dynamic IP, you should just vote once, as multiple votes aren't counted.--Chaser T 19:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hehe... no it's not the same person. but it was someone I told about the discussion and he checked the google and post a comment. i just read the deletion guidelines and it says that "the second deletion discussion is not necessary". i guess that means that once the article is deleted it cannot be relisted again? if that's so, then i suggest i delete it myself before it gets deleted by someone else; i will relist it in october when the association is about to publish a book with one of the major publishing houses. i'm sure there will be a lot of media coverages then. would that work for you? however, i still dont understand why an organization that is recognized by such people like Arend Lijphart and Michael Pinto Duschinsky should not be in Wikipedia. Suggest me to delete it and I will. Topjur01 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Just let it sit. An admin will get to it and delete it. Feel free to leave me a message at my talk page when that book gets published. If I'm not too busy with class, I'd be happy to help you write an article that complies with all of wikipedia's many policies. Cheers!--Chaser T 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG Eusebeus 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While the webpage claims to be part of University of Maribor School of Law it is registered to a home in Maribor, according to whois. "European election law association " has 131 yahoo.com hits. Nickieee 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Macktheknifeau 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the starting author of this page. I have checked the guidelines and especially the WP:ORG and I agree that the EURELA does not yet meet the criteria for the Wikipedia. Therefore: Delete. The consensus has been reached. Topjur01 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furanolactone

What does the article mean when it states "Furanolactone is a lactone that uses the furan ring structure." Since once the two-position has the double bond to the carbon atom and the single bond to oxygen atom, you can only make a single bond, and not a double bond, as the statement implies (a lactone would need the C=O double bond, whcich would be impossible as specified before). Other arangements may be possible (with only one double bond, etc.), but this article gives a misleading discription (I originally wanted to add a chem structure, but then ran into this problem). Very little context, room for expansion. Only google hits I found where mirrors and refrences to a "diterpenoid furanolactone columbin" which appears to be unrelated. Due to this, delete or rewrite. Polonium 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, this is not Gamma-butyrolactone. It has the structure . It is a different compound, because furanolactone is not listed as an other name of the compound. Polonium 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Furanolactone is a real chemical compound, similar to GBL as you note, but with a double bond in the ring. I don't know of any notable uses of furanolactone, either in industry or in research; so unless someone can note some usefullness, there is currently no reason for this article. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is a real compound, then this article should exist, after a rewrite. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. I can rewrite it, I only need to know the chem structure (where the carbon-carbon double bond is). Polonium 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I do find some uses of it in google - in apparent immune boosting (quack?) medicine, as a hullicinigen, what have you. WilyD 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Furan-2-one
Furan-2-one
  • Comment. OK, this has gotten me curious, so I've done a bit of research. The article says that furanolactone is the same as furan-2-one. Furan-2-one is a real compound with the structure at the right. However, Chemical Abstracts (the authorative chemical database) does not include furanolactone as a synonym for furan-2-one. The term "furanolactone" does turn up in the chemical literature, but only to describe a broad class of natural chemical compounds that contain both a furan ring and a separate lactone ring, which are completely distinct from furan-2-one. This is probably what User:WilyD's Google hits are turning up too. An example is the hallucinogen salvinorin A. So there are two separate things here which the furanolactone article seems to conflate. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is another possible isomer. (UTC)

Furan-2-one will probably exist as an interconverting mixture of those two isomers (tautomers, to be specific) and a third, 2-hydroxyfuran. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded, without prejudice to recreation: valid topic. Current sub-stub is unintelligible to the non-specialist and says nothing that a specialist wouldn't already know. Smerdis of Tlön 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Smerdis. Recognized as a valid topic but I think there isn't a single verifiable sentence in that article. hateless 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep with Opabinia's rewrite. hateless 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite seems valid (Though I am struggling with the chemistry). ViridaeTalk 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've rewritten it to refer to the class of compounds with both furan and lactone rings. The original claim was structurally impossible and it's too bad that Wikipedia and its mirrors are top Google hits for the term, given the flawed previous definition. We could probably use an article on 2-furanone as well. Opabinia regalis 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Indeed needs (well, needed) a rewrite, but a delete is not warrented. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Found the chemical, added data and text. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
But your data refers to 2-furanone and should go on that page, correct? Unless you've found evidence that the name "furanolactone" really is used as a synonym for 2-furanone. Opabinia regalis 15:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You've got me there .. hmm .. is this really the same compound .. I'll have a look around and come back to the subject! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't find any proof. Found a link to a file with a picture of ascorbic acid, and indeed, there is the 2-furanone-ring again. It may be that these two compounds are the same, though I do not see them anywhere as being synonymous. I reverted my edits on furanolactone, moved the chemical data to 2-furanone, and begin to support a delete (I am generally against deletion, except if the compound really does not exist .. and then wikipedia should maybe inform why the compound is e.g. an urban legend) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printcasting

Yet another protologism from the podosphere. --Haakon 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself uses the term. [[34]]. --Nashville

Sorry, that's Wikinews. --Nashville

Keep this. Page, I love it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.169.10 (talk • contribs)

Note The only non-vandalism post from this IP. Fan-1967 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If our sister project Wikinews uses it, we should have it as an article. Wikipedia is a puzzle piece. Plain and simple. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Chaser T 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete seems to me delete per WP:NEO or WP:OR. As much as I find the word cute, I think the reference article in german is not relevant in this context. The german language is full of words which are composed of smaller words all banged together. The use of "printcasting" in English does not seem that popluarised yet, unlike podcasting. Ohconfucius 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. About 12 Google hits, but none are valid secondary sources. eaolson 16:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism -- Whpq 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoKrida

No indicated notability, no reliable sources, no indication of a large number of players. Seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Conclusion of the previous afd was keep because of the game 's unique gameplay, yet I didn't find any reliable source confirming this. Peephole 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The way the game is set up, you kind of have to create an account to find out yourself what it is about. It is frustrating that there is a lack of independent sources with information on the game; this is one reason I've been working on this article. Some of the information in the article is the kind of thing I would have liked to have known before signing up, to help me decide whether it was worth my while. Maybe you should try playing the game, and see for yourself if it is notable. Meanwhile, here's some food for thought. Maybe you could even discuss the game with Mr. Berg; perhaps he knows of some independent sources. B7T 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the notability issue, I would think that the fact that the National Heritage Foundation is backing GoKrida would make it notable. B7T 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd like to point out that the National Heritage Foundation has about 9,000 foundations under its umbrella and blogs aren't generally accepted as sources (WP:RS). It's something but not nearly enough to include it in wikipedia in my opinion. --Peephole 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't suggesting you consider the blog a source. Just that you rather thoroughly read the GNHF site and the links in the blog for some insight, as it's probably the most useful information you're likely to get outside of participating in GoKrida. And I think it's intriguing that what is essentially a browser-based fantasy sim was considered worthy of funding by the NHF; that must have been some interesting sales pitch. B7T 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a link there now to the National Heritage Foundation's donation page for GoKrida. I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable outside source as to notability, however I do question the basic idea of Wikipedia being only for things that are notable enough to have garnered mainstream attention. What differentiates Wikipedia from Brittanica is precisely that it is an encyclopedia of many things that are not "notable" to the mainstream press, but nonetheless may hold some interest for a niche audience. As an early example of a web browser game being recognized as an official educational or national heritage resource, that may confer upon it some degree of notability. 68.146.221.26 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the various policies regarding Wikipedia-worthy articles as I probably should be; but I'm more a spirit of the law person, and I think this article is worth developing further. B7T 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs better sourcing, but from what I can tell, it has a significant number of players. Ace of Sevens 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: How many? --Peephole 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How should I know? That's why it needs sources. If it has developed a player culture, that suggests some significant number, though. Ace of Sevens 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment:So you're just guessing it has a significant number of players?
          • Not exactly. I'm relying on indirect evidnece. If I said cars were commonplace in Elbonian society, that would be a strong indication that they are an industrialized society. It's quite impossible to tell how industrialized based on that. Basically, the information in the article couldn't be true without a few thousand players. I can't be more specific. Ace of Sevens 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
From the stats pagethis, it look like Gokrida roughly gets anywhere from 10,000-40,000 hits per 2-week period. --HResearcher 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: Its relationship with the NHF gives it a shade of notability. However, searching google results 232 unique hits half of those seem to be blogs and the other half seems to be ads related to GoKrida. --Mitaphane talk 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I should had done a little more research before relying on NHF for a notable source. In the previous AfD discuss user Jonel brought a good point about GoKrida's ties to the NHF. I looked it up on their website and this is all you can find. I decided to see what the NHF was about. I found this:

One of our main objectives is to popularize the use of Foundations. We want to make foundations accessible to everyone, regardless of income level. A Foundation at NHF is inexpensive to start (only $385 application fee) and inexpensive to operate. NHF does all the “administrivia” for you, including receiving all donations, writing checks and making disbursements from your foundation, sending charitable receipts for donations to your foundation, all accounting, state and federal compliance and reporting.

So in other words these people sell non-profit tax-exempt foundations for $385. These sources from The Joplin Globe & LA Times seem to agree. Based on this informaion, I'm saying delete based on wikipedia notability criteria. --Mitaphane talk 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It seems this site is somewhat notable, but how notable? I don't know. --HResearcher 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There has been some debate about notability, verifiability, etc. as they apply to browser-based games; they may be a unique case where the criteria should be different. (See here and here for a couple of discussions where this is brought up.) Also, notability is not formal policy. B7T 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Sorry, a bit of a rant follows.) This AfD has been relisted twice now, and it seems very few people are willing to discuss it. The previous AfD concluded the article was a keeper, and those who have participated in this one generally seem to think this article might be worth including; can't we leave it alone for now? Is it necessary to actually have a consensus? Nexus War was recently retained with no consensus, although granted that was a more spirited discussion. I would like to see some actual discussion here, but it seems that isn't going to happen. B7T 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Because of the uniqueness of the game, I think it may be worth keeping, it's very different from other games in its particular category (if there is actually one). --Ariadoss 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Uniqueness is POV, not an argument for inclusion. --Peephole 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments: Arguably there is a uniqueness to this game that can be seen objectively. Unfortunately, it's hard to demonstrate this without becoming a participant in GoKrida. And yes, one could also argue that participants have a vested interest in the game and would necessarily think of its uniqueness as a positive thing; but there are many who try it out and give up because it is so unique, and they can't quite "get" it; this could explain a regular player base that still seems small, even though GoKrida has actually been around for several years. And one would think that several years' worth of existence should have given GoKrida some sort of notability by now, yet I still can't find anything to cite from noteworthy independent sources, although I am continuing a search for such things to improve the article. B7T 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sliquid

Prod removed by creator. He claims that the page contains valuable information and that this is not spam. I have a hard time assuming good faith since the same editor claims that he is the creator of this image. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I disagree with the creator. At best it's a spam advert, although bottle is shaped more like water for cyclists than for a feminine personal sexual lubricant "with the desired flavor or warming effect". Mattisse 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Well, the thing exists... according to the search engines. I am not going to make any comments on the shape of the article. 197,000 hits for google, 83,400 for yahoo 6,245 for MSN, and 6,810 for ask.com. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Eagle 101's comment, but is it a notable? --HResearcher 11:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 cents I think to have this information is valuable but it could be explained more extensively so it is not an advertisement. When I did a google search for this and found it on wikipedia I went right to it. With the extensive lubrication problems with post menopausal women and the high level of premature ejaculation in men it is good to find these products. Granted you could find them without this listing but if they could expand on the science of their product and why it is safer to use their product it would make it more helpful for people who are concerned. ie. why latex safe, glycerine and yeast infection, lidocaine and potential problems, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.35.172 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05 12:50:08
  • Delete, promotional, no evidence that the product is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Promotional, does not appear to be notable product. Fan-1967 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad for non-notable product - 227 distinct Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect for now; turn it into a disambig if needed (Liberatore, 2006). 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First day worship

Duplication of another article here Sabbath#Basis_of_First_Day_Observance. (Not worth marking to be merged, because they are pretty much identical). -Ladybirdintheuk 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect it - CheNuevara 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - might need to be turned into a disambig, as it's quite similar to Quaker terms such as First day school, Meeting for worship, etc. (I'm curious whether these will be red links...) SB_Johnny | talk 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Another good point, Johnny. --HResearcher 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If someone sees a need for a dab, the redirect can be changed in the future. Vegaswikian 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect -- Whpq 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible I guess. I'm removing the lyrics... but they'll still be in the article history. W.marsh 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland Unfree

Three specimen articles nominally describing Irish republican songs. There are a number of articles of the same pattern, ie a one sentence introduction followed by fifty lines of lyrics (see Irish rebel music for a shedload), but none seem to have been through AfD. WP:NOT a collection of lyrics or a thinly disguised soapbox. Mr Stephen 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Also for consideration:

  • Delete per nom. Thε Halo Θ 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - These are apparently marching songs, and so would seem to have historical signifigance. The articles certainly need improvement otherwise; see The Battle Hymn of the Republic for a good article of this genre. SB_Johnny | talk 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Hmm, that is an interesting point. --HResearcher 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, right. For example, "Ireland Unfree" appears to be written by Brian Warfield (of the Wolfe Tones), see [35] & [36]. The Wolfe Tones only formed in 1963 [37], but maybe historical signifigance starts earlier these days. Mr Stephen 20:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per User:SB_Johnny's comment. --HResearcher 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Individual songs without context are not articles. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly merge per above. Remove any copyvio lyrics (at least I assume that 60's songs are still copyrighted). Sandstein 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references. Almost seems like some average Joe made it up. Green caterpillar 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of song lyrics, and these song articles do not assert notability (were they hits? have they achieved lasting popularity or cultural significance like the Battle Hymn? were any of them controversial?) Demiurge 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep, after checking the copyright status of any lyrics quoted in full. "Similar" songs such as Croppies Lie Down have articles of their own, and songs of similar note from the other sides of the conflict also deserve articles. Any claim of non-notability should be made on an individual rather than a class basis at minimum. Smerdis of Tlön 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not copyvio and these can be sourced, transwiki to wikisource. Pure lyrics do not an article make. Carlossuarez46 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learninghour

This article is a disguised link spam. The article Tutor gets linked spam on a regular basis, but this time it was done in a smarter way [38]. This mention has already been deleted, but the article needs also to be cleaned up. Delete - wikipedia is not for advertisement. Tony Bruguier 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to E-learning maybe? Or would that be linkspamming? --HResearcher 10:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not convinced that this company is verifiably notable. -AED 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fucking delete. Erwin 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to wild type. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild-type virus

Wild-type simply refers to the most common strain of an organism in existence, free from artificially induced mutations. It is nonsense to say that wild-type is the antithesis of antiviral resistance, since the latter is a phenomenon and the former a classification. While the article does contain some correct information, I feel that this request would better be served by redirecting to either antiviral drug or antiretroviral drug. Nominated for deletion. Angio 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't know much about the topic, but believe that the suggested redirects are not a good idea. In general, X should only redirect to Y if X is covered by the topics dealt with in article Y. That is not the case here. It may be better to remove the incorrect information and leave a stub to be expanded by knowledgeable editors. There are plenty of Google hits on this as a search term. --LambiamTalk 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the article is currently incorrect but a notable topic then it should just be rewritten. A redirect would be fine too (with the correct content covered in the redirect targets, as Lambiam says). Since there is no reason to hide the current content of the page, neither of these require an AFD :). If you wish to rewrite or redirect, just reply on this page that you wish to withdraw the AFD, and an admin will close it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:26Z
  • The reason that "wild-type virus" will pull up hits on Google is that wild-type is an adjectival phrase used to describe any organism that has not been tinkered with by scientists or is not otherwise mutated. Having an article for "wild-type virus" is analogous to having an article for "red car" or "fast airplane." If you don't approve of my redirect suggestion, I will expand the wild-type stub and redirect to that. Angio 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Almost a half of the hits also reference HIV or AIDS therapy, so something is going on there. You also get more hits for "Little Red Corvette" than you would expect from the juxtaposition of "little red" and "Corvette". --LambiamTalk 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's because "Little Red Corvette" happened to be used by Prince for an album title. I think the analogy is somewhat ill-considered, because the phrase "wild-type virus" carries no denotative or connotative meaning beyond the sum of the meanings of its two parts. In my own opinion, which I believe to be substantially qualified by experience beyond the layman's, this is a useless and misleading article. Those who want to know what "wild-type virus" means should, upon finding there to be no article by that name, break the phrase into its two logical components. They will be much better served by doing so. Please redirect wild-type virus to wild-type. Angio 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article should be edited per some of the comments. --HResearcher 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wild-type. The term "wild-type" is used to describe any non-engineered species, and does not generally have a specific meaning with respect to antibiotic resistance as far as I am aware. The page as written puts an antibiotic-resistance spin on the definiton which is somewhat interesting, but I don't think it is a good general description of a wild-type virus. bikeable (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Wild type. As pointed out above, wild type viruses do not have any paticular significance or association with drug therapy. ViridaeTalk 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wild-type per the above. -AED 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wild type per Angio's arguments. Redirecting to antiviral drug or the like would be awkward because the term has use outside of drug development and is not specifically related to antivirals. The article as it stands has a ton of misleading "information". Opabinia regalis 03:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. SorryGuy 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article itself isn't particularly useful, but there is abundant published information about wild-type viruses with some distinctions from the wild type in other organisms, and the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs, especially HIV therapy. The current wild type article is a very brief definition and doesn't seem suitable as a hook for hanging technical information regarding a single group. Espresso Addict 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Can you explain how (or give a reference to something explaining how) the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs? That appears to be the very issue that is contested in this AfD discussion. --LambiamTalk 09:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    There's an accessible discussion relating to HIV in a review by Buss & Cammack for Antiviral Therapy (2000) 6(1): 1-7 available in pdf here: [39] -- see particularly the subheading 'Complexities in extrapolating from in vitro to in vivo' Espresso Addict 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't want to labour the point here, but the mere fact that there are two distinct definitions of 'wild-type virus' being used in this discussion (ie, 'non-engineered' & 'pre-therapy') suggests that there's scope for an article. Espresso Addict 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Sweeney

Run of the mill pervert. There are many, unfortunately. This one was newsworthy in the UK at the time of his most recent crime, and during his trial and conviction. But his subsequent notability is not proved: the rare appearance of a common-or-garden perv seldom leads to lasting notability or future fame. If it does, Wikipedia can always come back to the subject when some sort of notability beyond his crime is assertable. ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a news report database. Case of WP:Recentism here. Bwithh 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I guess if you're not Jeffery Dahmer or Jack the Ripper, you don't have the kind of lasting fame to be a criminal deserving a Wikipedia article. It is well cited and a not an entirely unknown case, however. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article contains information that the public would need to know. Remember, he may be out again within five years. --Generalstaben 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep His conviction was national news and shocked millions of people, I don't see why it should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cola4 (talk • contribs) .
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Article suggests regional notability. -AED 00:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Likely to remain notable, not so much because of his own crimes as because of the controversy surrounding his sentencing. Vashti 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Briefly making headlines does not confer notability and conflates an encyclopedic project with simply a compendium of new items. Are we going to chronicle every case where the prison sentence attracts attention? Eusebeus 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless... The case may be used as an illustration of child sexual abuse in British media and law (the child sexual abuse article is presently America-centric and sitting under a "globalize" tag). If that's done, the case may have wider relevance. As it is, it's just another news story. DanB DanD 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone really needs to explain to me why being a convicted rapist is more notable than being an unsigned indie band or a church pastor or a blogger. Just because the news media loves to sensationalise these kinds of stories, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -/- Warren 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this article is notable and well structured, fair enough he hasnt earned recognition but what he did means he should have it. Ian Huntley has a page and Myra Hindley why should this person be any differant? (Neostinker 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but a merge/redirect to the company article is possible without afd, if anyone ever writes an article on the company. W.marsh 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Hashemi

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Bogsat 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, co-founder of Coffee Republic which is a notable coffee house franchise in the UK (competitors are Starbucks, Cafe Nero and Costa), so some notability Catchpole 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Poorly written, but a quick Google search turns up results that indicate to me he is notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article does not provide citations that satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO. If someone can provide, please do, else article should be deleted. --Satori Son 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As is, delete per WP:V. Verifiability is not optional. -AED 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Reference added to meet WP:V. Catchpole 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Catchpole and Cholmes75. 1ne 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I certainly may look foolish as a minority of one, I must respectfully disagree with my fellow editors above and retain my "Delete" opinion. First of all, I do not believe that the single reference to Franchise Magazine, a non-notable publication itself, satisfies the WP:V requirement that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Second, since the subject's only claim to notability is the founding of Coffee Republic, itself a non-notable company, I still do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO. I realize that this is all probably moot at this point, but I just wanted to clarify my position. Thanks. --Satori Son 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Keathley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravager Affinity

See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh. Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the main contributor to this article, I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page. From a scholarly point of view, there is IMO no deck that is more influential than Ravager Affinity in the game's history. The deck dominated tournaments in multiple formats, was at the forefront of the community for years, and caused unprecendented actions by the game's creators. I have tried my best to make this article encyclopedic. It has wiki code, the text I wrote is as clear as I can make it, and it cites references. It has no decklist, mulligan rules, game scenarios, play tips, sideboarding strategy, or metagame concerns. For contrast, here is an evolvutionary history of Ravager Affinity which is encyclopedic in nature and here is an example of a "strategy guide", what we in the community normally call primers, deck clinics, or in this case a tournament report, which are not encyclopedic. As a compromise, specific decks could be defined on their own list page or on their specific their archetype page. I have developed a decklist template but I have refrained from using it since it appears that Magic decklists are not encyclopedic but rigorous strategy detailing Two Knights Defense is. I could nominate Latvian Gambit for AFD for the same reasons here but it would probably be shot down, that and my stance on AFD is extremely lax for an Internet-based encyclopedia. NorrYtt 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page." Yes, this sounds about right. Please don't try to make comparisons between MTG and chess in terms of notability and significance. Magic has been around for 13 years and chess for more than a thousand (in its current form, about 500). Chess is played and/or recognized by many more people (by orders of magnitude) in many more countries than Magic. I won't even get into tournament attendance and prize payout figures. You bring up the example of the Two Knights Defense, which has existed for more than four hundred years and studied by every chess player above the beginner level for centuries; do you honestly think it's worth comparing its importance and notability to a Magic deck that did not exist three years ago? And please know that I say this as someone who has enjoyed Magic immensely for more than a decade, and who hasn't touched a chess piece in almost as long. Andrew Levine 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I will simply leave it that I am willing to keep most any article as long as its in the right place and could benefit someone. I feel more content is better than less (i.e. more professional). I feel if someone wants to know how to get all the Warp Whistles in Super Mario 3, they could find it tucked away somewhere. In the future, I will try not to waste so much of my time contributing to the AFD category. NorrYtt 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedents. -AED 00:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As it happens, I'm a Magic player myself, and I can't imagine any one deck ever invented being noteworthy -- the more so in that by Magic's own tournament rules, almost any such deck will become obsolete within a year anyway. By contrast, there isn't a chess paradigm yet that needs to be banned from tournament play because people win too much with it. RGTraynor 07:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete"I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive its own page." (You know we're just being mean because we used to play ourselves!) DanB DanD 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Shell babelfish 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rory Atwell

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. WP:VAIN Not notable in his own right. Looks autobiographical. His old band's, Test Icicles, listing looks just about OK per WP:MUSIC - one minor hit and quite a few gigs around the UK, but Atwell seems to be using Wiki to publice his new activities.Ohconfucius 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. Test Icicles was much more notable than the entry tends to lead on currently, and this is perfectly fine as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Common Sense. i am not going to look but i bet that chantelle person from big brother has a wiki entry that isn't up for deletion. txqt. log me in wiki tx. --Marge4 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
maintain delete or urgent rewrite The article is unsourced and its style contravenes WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ohconfucius. This article is a disgrace. BlueValour 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As is, violates WP:V. Would reconsider if rewritten. -AED 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • i've stubbed it, it looked worse than when I first saw it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. Eusebeus 12:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Park Citizens Association

This is a non-notable organizatio (fails the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)) with no verifiable sources cited other than its own website. Erechtheus 14:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete seems to meet CSD requirements --RMHED 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a local group, but within that context, it is notable. It forced Giant Food Stores to make major changes to its proposed expansion of a supermarket in Cleveland Park.[40] TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the news blurb, I'm not convinced this organization is notable. -AED 00:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A blurb about it is already in Cleveland Park. SliceNYC 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn enough for its own page; mention at Cleveland Park is surely sufficient. Perhaps put a redirect to Cleveland Park? Eusebeus 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeadSpawn

Not significant enough for an entry. While this band spawned (no pun intended) several others, it doesn't really comply with inclusion guidelines. BrianFG 10:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: point six of WP:BAND notwithstanding, I think that Daysend are only barely notable, this doesn't merit their inclusion. --David Mestel(Talk) 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect — per that point 6. Redirects are cheap. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Daysend. Seems like an exact match to the point cited from WP:BAND. It would be trickier if there were multiple band members who are now in different notable bands, but as it is the redirect looks like it would cover everything notable. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Vulcan (Star Trek). Shell babelfish 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'Kahr

This page is for a fictional city which was never seen, only talked about twice. It is not even remotely notable enough to have a page of its own. Philip Stevens 09:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete All this information could easily be on Mr. Spock's or the Vulcan article. Fails WP:NN. Thε Halo Θ 12:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Vulcan. (No reason for it not to be a redirect, unless there's another Shi'Kahr which is at least as notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete Certainly not notable enough, if the nom's statement is true. Memory Alpha has the page, so they don't need it. Just merge anything notable enough to Vulcan. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect with Vulcan. -AED 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as above. 23skidoo 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no claim to significance whatsoever.--SB | T 08:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The TY Revolution

This is a non-notable fansite for Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. Was prodded by me, but deprodded, so I'm bringing it here. The argument for inclusion on the talk page is that BZPower, a Bionicle fansite with over 30,000 users, is included, so this site, with 135 users, should also be included. The site itself is hosted by freewebs, a sure sign of non-notability. Incidently, the main Ty article isn't very good - the effort put into this article should be directed there. Nydas 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, plus the fact that Google has only 800-odd results for "ty revolution", and no pages linking to it. I'd probably even consider voting delete on that Bionicle site, should it come to it, and it at least has some significant Google results (but a really poor Alexa result). Confusing Manifestation 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried re-directing it to Ty the Tasmanian Tiger but nothing happens, could someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemega32 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete First of all, I reverted the redirect back to the article, including the AfD tag. Not just should the article be deleted, but it should not be a redirect. The site is not nearly popular enough for it to have any presence on WP. It completely fails WP:WEB. In addition, it should not be a redirect, as that 1) implies that the site is somehow significant, and 2) implies that anyone would search that term (which is highly doubtful). -- Kicking222 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Deletion True, TYR may be small in its present state, however it is growing at an incredible pace and we are also the only TY site to have recent information on the upcoming TY games (plus information on the recently cancelled TY: Gunyip! ), plus some very detailed articles for the two recent TY games (TY1's page is being revamped). Krome Studios, the developers of TY, also visit the site regularly and post exclusive information about the games in development. TYR is also the biggest active TY The Tasmanian Tiger fansite/community on the web right now, and getting bigger every day. By this time next year we fully expect to have over 1,000 members. TYR is becoming extremely popular in small corners of the net, and it can only spread from there. TYR's still on FreeWebs, yes, you have us there. However, we intend to buy a server within a year and move the contents of the site there, thus taking the site off of FreeWebs and making TYR a "true" independent site.ToyoWolf 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please see WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You (and I mean the general "you", not "you", ToyoWolf, in particular) cannot attempt to assert notability by saying "This could be popular one day," or "She could get famous if...," or, in your case, "We fully expect to have over 1,000 members" and "We intend to buy a server within a year." Also, please look at WP:WEB for criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia concerning web sites. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Deletion It just needs time to grow. Just read what Toyo said. But what I'd like to ask is why you even care? It's a small article, I don't think it should take up very much disk space. Does every byte count or is rule enforcement at top priority here? Oh, and Kotzu, one of the mods there, has something to say about this.

"Oh my God that is one arrogant and stupid person. The only reason he wants to delete it is because he thinks his Halo and holy Grand Theft Autos are so much better and that you're a n00b for liking Ty(He blatantly leads me to believe that).

Here's a thought, Kicking222. Maybe some people aren't old enough to enjoy your blood and gore splattered games that you also lead me to believe you play. Ty is the perfect game for kids 6-11. Or maybe some people actually appreciate the effort, innovation, and fun in a Ty the Tasmanian Tiger title(me). Maybe if you stopped listening to your dieties such as IGN and actually approached games with an open mind, we wouldn't have this problem.

The only reason he's against it is because he doesn't like Ty. Plain, and simple. Because I'm pretty sure that if it was the biggest Halo forum on the net, or the biggest Half-Life forum on the net we were talking about, he wouldn't have a problem with it. He said this site was insignificant, and that no one would search for Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. Bullshit. The members of the freaking DEVELOPMENT team go here. Do you hear me, kicking222? THE MEMBERS OF KROME STUDIOS POST HERE, GIVING THE SITE A HIGHER SIGNIFICANCE THAN MOST FAN FORUMS. Jeez." A direct quote of his post. - Superkid11, mod of TYR.

  • Comment I'm simply going to respond in order of what you stated. 1) I couldn't care less about the "disk space"- I doubt Wikipedia could hold an infinite number of articles, but it could certainly hold a lot. The concern is notability; in building an encyclopedia, we (meaning you, me, and everyone on WP) must have some standards. If every web site had its own Wikipedia article, then, obviously, WP would be larger than the entirety of the rest of the Web. 2) I'm not sure how WP's rules on not making personal attacks applies to quoting other people, but I still don't appreciate it. I'm not attacking you for your views, and I should not be attacked for mine; our views are equally valid. For the record, I do adore Halo and GTA; I also love the Ratchet & Clank games, the Tony Hawk games, the NBA Street games, the Dance Dance Revolution games, and games in pretty much every genre (besides RPGs and strategy games). I have absolutely nothing against the Ty series's games; as I have never played them, I cannot judge their quality. However, you can be sure that if a GTA fansite's article was up for deletion, I would argue for its deletion unless it could be proven that the site was particularly significant. 3) In addition, size of a web forum matters, and I'm sure the largest Halo or Half-Life forum is many dozens (if not hundreds) times larger than this Ty forum. I understand that staff members on the Ty team posts on your forums, but I know of (for example) more than a few GTA fansites that have direct correspondence with Rockstar (in fact, the pamphlet/booklet/whatever you want to call it for all of the PS2 GTA games have "Thank yous" for half a dozen or so sites), and none of them have articles. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm a mod on the site and I seriously think the site doesn't need a page. If it becomes big enough, we might get one. But for now, there's realy no point.... Kotzu really shouldn't have said all that stuff, and SK shouldn't have posted it here. -- Pokemega32 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect with Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. -AED 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, quite aside from that "you're only nominating this because you hate us" malarkey sets my teeth on edge. RGTraynor 07:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete textbook fancruft. Eusebeus 12:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and not worth a merge/redirect. --Kinu t/c 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "Not a Crystal Ball" have anything to do with it? Pokemega32 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is one of the official policy tenets of Wikipedia. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with WP:NOT before weighing in on AfD discussions. RGTraynor 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what "Wikipedia Is not a Crystal Ball" means, but it has nothing to do with this topic!!! This isn't about future events! Pokemega32 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A recommendation to keep states above: YR may be small in its present state, however it is growing at an incredible pace... and getting bigger every day... this time next year we fully expect to have over 1,000 members... and it can only spread from there... we intend to buy a server within a year and move the contents of the site there'. I was citing these claims to notability when noting that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sorry for the confusion. --Kinu t/c 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Clausen

Incorectly listed. No reason and no vote. ViridaeTalk 00:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Quarterback of a 5-6 college team, who did not go into the NFL, doesn't do it for me. Fan-1967 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted above - not a notable sports figure. Sorry, it's my first attempt at listing an article for deletion. I apologize for any and all mistakes. PeteJayhawk 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tennessee is a high-profile team. SliceNYC 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, but that doesn't confer notability on all their quarterbacks. Heath and Tee got into the NFL, albeit for a short time; Rick unfortunately didn't make it. Gazpacho 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside The Ropes

Non notable website. Spam. Google hit liking to the said website. Ageo020 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete discussion boards are rarely notable. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Come on, there's absolutely no reason to keep this page in wikipedia. Nebuchanezzar 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheWarpath.net, Thewarpath.net

Non-notable web forum, Alexa rank of 755,314. Only claim to notability is being mentioned on some obscure football TV show. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, one heck of a heavily mythologised website there. BigHaz 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hundreds of teams have fan forums. This is one of them. Fan-1967 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Similar entry at Thewarpath.net Clappingsimon talk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think we have to worry about that one right now; once the main article gets deleted, we can speedy the redirect under CSD R1. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The redirect had been reverted last time I looked Clappingsimon talk 02:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I've added it to this AfD to be on the safe side. Either way, as duplicate content or redirect, it goes with the other. Keep an eye out for others. Fan-1967 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both no assertion of notability as required by WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals

Copy of content in existing FIFA World Cup article, except sorted differently (to make Germany look better, and with a statement at the top that "By looking upon these rankings, we can infer that Germany is the most successful soccer nation in the world.") Chuq 00:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chuq 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete but rename to "List of world cup teams that have won medals" or similar and remove that POV piece about germany.I just found thatit was exactly the same information as in the results section of FIFA World Cup just presented in a different way. ViridaeTalk 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Dont Delete - For those of you who believe this article is in good use thank you and for those who think it should be changed and deleted please wait. I made this article and no I am not trying to make Germany look good or I am not saying the Ranking based on teams winning the most is wrong, all I am saying is to just take note of these rankings and compare and contrast them with the others. I am an American and I have been on the US side. Even my cousins are Italian. Besides that, I will still be editing this for the next couple of days so give me some time and I hope to keep everybody satisfied to the best of my ability. Though I will not change this ranking system. Maybe I could bring out the great records of other teams into the article to create more of an equality. I believe there is no need to delete this and if you want it merged then I will accept your suggestion. Thank You for your opinions. Kr2kewl No Time, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment that would be a POV use of the name "world cup". 132.205.93.83 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge into FIFA World Cup#Successful national teams or possibly National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup. Definitely not worth its own page - all it would need is the addition of one thin column to the table on the main FIFA World Cup page. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The opening paragraph of the article is WP:OR combined with WP:POV. It's claim is not verfiable. The table itself adds nothing that is not already deducible from FIFA World Cup. -- Alias Flood 01:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary duplication of material already available elsewhere. Also 'medals' is a strange term. Medals? It's not the Olympics, there's no podium, gold, silver and bronze. There's a trophy, which one team wins, and then there are second place, third place and fourth places determined. Sure, individuals are given medals (including individuals in the 4th place team), but its not common to speak of teams winning medals at the world cup. The most successful team is the one that's won the most trophies. So there! ;) Robotforaday 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV recreation of existing topic. Resolute 05:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV and original 'research' (massaging of data). I originally raised this at the World Cup talk page - note similar discussion there. I've added a note there to comment here, not there. -- Wantok 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Duplication of material in FIFA World Cup, and top three is quite arbitrary for World Cup purposes. As someone said, this is not the Olympics. Chanheigeorge 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — see great reasons above mboverload@ 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Change NO NEED FOR DELETION - True, but i believe this author has a point. Maybe the page should be merged. Medals are given out for first, second, and third. I mean Brazil has won the most and yet their success was not too great this world cup. I suggest changing the ranking to most successfully consistent teams. And yes with this title, the Germans definitely appear to be very stable and consistent with their results apart from all nations to compete in the world cup. Gunit555 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes a point No Deletion - This person makes us understand the great teams and if anyone has any objections, there is no need for a deletion especially when you could go to the other fifa page and see the rankings based on titles. So everybody relax there is no need of great criticism. These rankings do make sense and believe it or not the top three teams happen to still be Brazil, Germany, and Italy, except with standings of consistency like the critic above me said. Keep article or if not, merge it with another ranking to fit in. SoccerKing 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and POV. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. This is the first time I have encountered the idea of a World Cup medals table, so I don't think it has much currency. Piccadilly 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research, POV, nonsense. - Pal 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. If anything this trivia point could be mentioned in the main article. The current extra page, POV content and OR should go though. aLii 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Sanchez III

Delete - whopping 2 google hits [41] (I know it says 7, but 5 of those are Ricardo Sanchez #3 on IMDB. "Extreme Wrestling Alliance" as well is non-notable - 294 hits [42], so I doubt any of their wrestlers are terribly notable. "Ricardo Sanchez" without the III and adding the word "wrestling" generates 575, but looking through them, I don't see this dude. If you subtract the word "Iraq" from the previous search, it generates 67, and even then I don't see this guy--Nobunaga24 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life Of Land Of Bungholers

Homemade homage to to South Park (and possibly Frank Zappa or Beavis and Butthead given Bunghole in the name?), new webcomic "first thought up on July 25, 2006", with no assertion of notability, that returns 0 Google hits [43], from a free tripod page, and about which it is stated that it "is only known by very few people". Fails every basis for inclusion we appeal to: WP:WEB, WP:NN, WP:NFT, WP:VSCA, etc., and probably WP:VAIN--Fuhghettaboutit 01:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 02:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria riot

Trivial disturbance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. BigHaz 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 100 injured and 3 dead is not a trivial disturbance, also reported by BBC and Christian Science Monitor. Dinosaur puppy 03:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. One reason I removed the PROD is that I know that many Coptic immigrants are upset that there is generally little attention paid in this country to the plight of Egypt's Copts. Since PROD is for "uncontroversial" deletions, and I could picture a Coptic axe-grinder objecting, that solidified my sense that I should de-PROD. However, I'm finding that actually Wikipedia appears to say very little about persecution of Egyptian Copts. For instance, the Religion in Egypt entry has a section on the persecution of Baha'is about as large as the "main" content, but not of Copts, despite the many times greater size of the latter community. We have an article on gay rights in Egypt, but as far as I can tell, none on discrimination against Coptic Christians. I'm sure a Copt advocate will find his way to Wikipedia eventually, but right now there's a systemic bias issue. Perhaps, if you consider this incident (which I'm sure wasn't the largest riot even in Alexandria's history) too "trivial" to sustain its own entry, a merge or rescope would be more in order. Anyway, I'll listen for the time being and hold off on casting a vote. --Groggy Dice 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • An article about the copts' situation is fine. This is not it. This belongs on wikinews. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the proper venue for raising consciousness on Coptic issues. RGTraynor 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Szvest 23:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A 5000 person riot doesn't seem trivial. Perhaps move to 2005 Alexandria riots. Drett 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a riot that has attracted international attention. It has sources, doesn't make any untrue claims, and at this point doesn't have any viable merge targets. It doesn't appear that this is any less significant than the Seattle Mardi Gras Riots, for example. Ziggurat 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep noteworthy article--Tess Tickle 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept, must be renamed to distinguish it from many more notable ones. Carlossuarez46 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This would have been kept if the riot had taken place in some major American city. A later merge into some suitable article would be fine. up+l+and 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been moved. Drett 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagami, Florida

This is not even a genuine Miami neighborhood. Just ask anyone that knows the city. Non notable neologism and only two edits. We must have missed this one Courtney Akins 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that this could be a redirect to Miami. What a redirect does is if someone clicks the link to Flagami, Florida, they will be "redirected" to the page about Miami at Miami, Florida. While I never lived in Florida, I will try and talk to some Miami-area folks I know and see if this is a true "nickname" or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Hilliard

NN bio. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Maybe if he won, but he didn't. -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks pretty forgetable. --Brianyoumans 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a high profile finalist on an MTV television show. How are people on MTV non-notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hall pass

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Voortle 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Cleanup I doubt this classifies as "made up in school one day" as it's a fairly common concept in most schools, although it does seem more like a dictionary entry then encyclopedic. Needs cleanup. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not "made up in school one day". --Gray Porpoise 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary - a real thing, but I doubt you can make much of a real article on the subject. --Brianyoumans 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary per above. Oh, I remember the days having one of these. -- Gogo Dodo 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a legitimate component of how schools run. Can the authors find any articles on how hall passes are used to ensure safety/order in schools? That might be interesting and increase encyclopedic merit. SliceNYC 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This will never be much more than a dictionary definition. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid addition to Category:Ephemera. --Elonka 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hall passes are not something "made up" in school. Yamaguchi先生 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amplitude dj

non-notable, vanity Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable. -- Gogo Dodo 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep If radio personalities are non-notable then there is a lot of clean up to do with Category:American radio personalities. I wouldn't mind deleting the whole lot of them, but that is beyond the scope of this AFD (would require a centralized discussion and radio notabity guidelines). Jon513 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The station doesn't even have it's own article, the DJ himself fails WP:WEB which I think is the best criteria in this situation. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, he's just a DJ on a SHOUTcast station, not a radio personality. the wub "?!" 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the Radio KoL article itself has been merged into the KoL article. Several pages for the radio's DJs have been created and subsequently deleted for their lack of notability, etc. Crazysunshine 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per information noted later in the discussion. Shell babelfish 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throat Gaggers

Delete (see below) Non-notable movie series, with no sources. Prod was removed without comment. Also note the author of this article has proposed it as a featured article candidate Gwernol 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Yes it is my article and this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography. Plus, others have worked on the article. Just check the history.Courtney Akins 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The number of editors is irrelevant. The issue is this movie series is non-notable. If you disagree, please provide independent sources for the notability of the movies. Thanks, Gwernol 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it non notable. I am sure the number of overwhelming keep votes that will be cast will prove your position untenable.Courtney Akins 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the "prod" was removed by my friend after he improved the article, thanks.Courtney Akins 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And asking for "independent sources" for notability is a bit much and sets a dangerous precedent. I am certain you will be proven wrong by the many voters.Courtney Akins 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not a dangerous precedent. Its how Wikipedia works. Please read the central notability guideline that helps us decide which articles should be included in the encyclopedia. You should also read our core policy on verifiability that requires all information added to articles be verifiable. Finally, you should know that this is a discussion, not a vote. Even if you get a lot of your friends to "vote" keep here it doesn't matter unless you can back up the opinions from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:AFD for more details. Gwernol 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Gwernol. If you're going to spend your time and energy debating the community instead of editing the article to meet the verifiability and notability guidelines, then the article justly deserves deletion. Girolamo Savonarola 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was just "debating" one person, not the "community."Courtney Akins 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' Article appears to have be started by head of company, fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) which I believe is the best criteria in this situation. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I AM NOT the head of the pornographic company that makes these films. In addition, the "Notability" guidlines WP:N alluded to above is just an essay not a policy, and furthermore these films are notable anyway, you will see when its kept.Courtney Akins 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And did you read WP:V, which is not an essay, but policy? Girolamo Savonarola 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are you saying this line of films does not even exist?Courtney Akins 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Courtney, your crystal ball is broken; this will in all likelihood get deleted. It's non-notable, unsourced, and unverified. Opabinia regalis 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Suppose this was real, what makes it notable or above the bar from any and all other pornographic films? If we had an article on every pornography the site would crash. This is a reason for the guidelines so that we can have something managable to work with. This is an unsourced article that really doesn't tell us why this it is exceptional. Sorry, try again after you familarize yourself with how to write an article. Yanksox 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum to keep. Google shows over 480,000 hits for the "Throat Gaggers" series of movies. They have been reviewed extensively on various Adult DVD movie sites as well. This is all verifiable. :) xoxo.Courtney Akins 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool, but is it important? Yanksox 03:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because no evidence of notability is given, and the article appears to fail WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CITE - the trifecta of Wikipedia policies. Please note that improving the article is the only way to remedy this problem, however, I highly doubt that it is possible to improve it sufficiently. Tuf-Kat 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as TUF-KAT et al. *gags* - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TUF-KAT — NMChico24 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn with fire of course... "Courtney" spammed my talk page with an innocent hello message. Gee wiz. "Xoxo, baby" somewhere else and take your advertising elsewhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable Brian 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • I was hoping there was an article about the company that produced the series, since if there was, we could have merged all of this stuff together. But since there isn't, delete with no hard feelings for User:Courtney Akins. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and lacking sources. - Duane 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tuf-Kat. Sandstein 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Courtney Akins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a troll. — Dunc|☺ 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep I am not sure about notablity but as far as verifialbe, the movie itself a source. When there is an article about a telvision episode we don't require the article to cite a newspaper or magizine that talks about the show - the actual show is the source. Jon513 10:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Because many TV shows have articles for their episodes, the current WP:V policy sets itself up for a serious violation of WP:POINT because of the precedent that would be established here if this content is deleted (some of which has been recognized as top-500 by a retail website). Just something to think about; some here seem to be applying policy more forcefully to this article than they would elsewhere; Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. BigNate37(T) 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Jon513 is wrong. Please point to the anything in WP:V, WP:CITE, or WP:RS that says "the actual show" can be the source. It cannot. We do require articles about television shows to cite sources. It's true that many of them don't, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and compliance with the verifiability policy is uneven. This is to be expected. Wikipedia is inconsistent. If you want consistency, work on a command-and-control encyclopedia. Meanwhile, if it is true that there are articles on television shows that cite no sources other than the shows themselves, then someone needs to get to work on those articles and cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. Thε Halo Θ 12:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Fieari 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, though it's popular within the genre. I agree with Jon513's comment, however, that an article about a primary source does not necessarily need a secondary source, unless for some reason someone might doubt it exists. 23skidoo 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless improved massivly: non-notable, unsourced, and unverified as it stands. WegianWarrior 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Changing vote as of 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC); see below. These movies are verifiable at cduniverse.com, which is the link I added when cleaning up this article. Follow the link, enter the site, sort by title and browse to page 7 to find about a dozen of these movies, two of which rank on the site's top 500 (denoted by icons). Gwernol (talk · contribs) failed to assume good faith when removing my link, stating "Remove commercial link", and then went on to assert that the article is unsourced. Check my contributions; I'm not here to make money from an article—I'm choosing to spend energy improving content rather than deleting where if possible. The two movies in the top 500 are criteria enough to have the Red Light District label article per WP:CORP which ought to be the relevant notability essay here, and let me remind you that notability is not policy or guideline; it is an essay and should not be sufficient evidence for deletion in and of itself. Previous keep votes have established verifiablity, and hopefully the verifying links will not also be removed. External links point to information not included in the article; over time these will migrate to references. Bear in mind that this is a new article and as a stub cannot be expected to qualify for WP:GA status. Verifiability is not being spoon fed here but the article is still clearly discussing a subject that exists and is more or less accurately doing so. BigNate37(T) 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That was not a failure to assume good faith. Please see WP:EL especially the section "Links normally to be avoided" which includes "Links that ... primarily exist to sell products or services... colloquially known as external link spamming." Since CDUniverse is a shopping site it is a commercial link that should generally be removed. The issue of verifiability is not around whether this movie series exists, but whether it can be verified that it has some independent merit (aka notability). Some reviews or awards to show that it meets notability criteria similar to WP:PORN BIO would be very helpful if you want this kept. I don't see how having two movies in CDUniverse's top 500 meets the WP:CORP criteria; perhaps you could expand on that. Gwernol 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be keenly interested to see what part of WP:V talks about merit and notability. As far as the top 500, this makes the entry at cduniverse.com more than a simple price listing (it is also denoting popularity) which means that it is a non-trivial published work. It's not concrete proof of notability, but it can't be ignored without thought. Keep in mind you're nitpicking the letter of what isn't even a guideline, rather than the spirit of it (i.e. notability is not policy). Please stick to policy and guidelines as your primary reason for deletion. I reassert that verifiability goes only as far as finding sources which verify the information in the article. The sources need not say anything that the article doesn't. BigNate37(T) 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good verifiable sources are cited to show, not that the films exist—that's not at issue—but that it is indeed, as Courtney Akins asserts, "a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography." As noted above, WP:NOT says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." For Deep Throat, one can cite Blumenthal, Ralph (1973), "Pornochic," The New York Times, Jan 21, 1973, pg. 272, "It has drawn an average of 5,000 people weekly to the New Mature World Theatre on West 59th Street here, including celebrities, diplomats, critics, businessmen, women alone, and dating couples, few of whom, it might be presumed, would have previously gone to see a film of sexual intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus. It has become a premiere topic of cocktail-party and dinner-table conversation in Manhattan drawing rooms, Long Island beach cottages, and ski country A-frames. It has, in short, engendered a new kind of porno chic." There are about thirty relevant articles in the New York Times that mention "Deep Throat" and "Lovelace," including the April 22, 2002 obituary for Linda Boreman. Where are any comparable references for Throat Gaggers? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. A search of an online database containing the full text of The New York Times returns these results: ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) No documents found for: ("throat gaggers") Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Bet that was a search you never thought you would be making. Eusebeus 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the exact policy reads as follows:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
If there are no editors who are going to actually edit the article to fulfull requirement 3, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been cited and written about in the sites mentioned above.Courtney Akins 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Which of those sites is the one that that says that, as you put it, "this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography?" A quick check of several of the imdb references, such as this one, shows no information about the movie other than the cast listings. Not even any user ratings. You ask us to believe these movies are important, yet apparently no imdb user has bothered to rate it. There is only a single external review, in DVD Talk, and the review says nothing about its being of any importance in the annals of contemporary pornography. It says basically that it is an "oral only film" and that people who enjoy such films will likely enjoy this one. It notes that the film isn't very grainy, and that the lighting could have used a little work but "it's not really bad." How does this add up to an important porn film? It hasn't even been reviewed seriously. For some of the films in this series, imdb lists no reviews at all.
By comparison, imdb's article on The Devil in Miss Jones leads to five external reviews, including this one by Roger Ebert, in which he calls it "The best hard-core porno film I've seen" and says of Georgina Spelvin "there burns in her soul the spark of an artist, and she is not only the best, but possibly the only, actress in the hard-core field."
What sources say the "Throat Gaggers" series is of any importance at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability has been produced. BlueValour 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to delete per comments and responses from Dpbsmith. With the reasons you've provided, the policy you've referred to, and thought I've given the issue, I now believe deletion of this material is justified by policy. BigNate37(T) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO and WP:NN for no awards/reviews by reputable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, they are commercially released films, they are mentioned at places like IMDb, and according to someone above they get a whole ton of Google hits. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Everyking 10:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Such is the problem with notability criteria on Wikipedia; there is no real consensus on what they are. WP:NOT an indiscriminant collection of information #7 (plot summaries) seems to qualify this article for deletion though, and unlike WP:NOTE, WP:NOT is policy. BigNate37(T) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • That makes no sense. If it is only a "plot summary" (where is the plot summary here, by the way? Does describing the focal sexual act of the films qualify as a plot summary?), then the solution is not to delete it but to add other things besides a plot summary. In fact this article already includes other things. Everyking 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, for pornography, describing the focal sexual act often (and in this case) is a plot summary. If there are parts missing, then it is even less than a plot summary. There is no sourced analysis; the only line that qualifies as achievements is lacking citation. So as I see it, without a source verifying something to the effect of the work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, it fails WP:NOT. As mentioned above, the onus of providing sources lies on the editor who adds content; not on the editor who questions the content added. It is easy to say that the solution is to add other things; saying it won't change the article. I've tried to come up with sources for others' work and fix the article rather than delete it, I can't. Oh, and I changed the indentation to list format, hope you don't mind—it's shallower. BigNate37(T) 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam JBKramer 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No solid reason to delete thus far given. On what grounds is this an indiscriminant collection of data? If this was an article about the length of toes, that would be indiscriminent. This however is about a major movie series. 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.smith (talk • contribs)
Oh, woops. I put to many "~"s. ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason is that the article presents no evidence to support the claim that it is, in fact, a major movie series. Or, in wikispeak, that it's notable. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please bear in mind that Courtney Akins is a newcomer of less than a week; please don't bite the newcomers. I've added wikilinks to other relevant articles here and additional external links to sites containing more information about the series. As one of my additions states, the first film in the series received an AVN Award, and all the films are highly rated by AVN. (Receiving an award is one of the "notability" criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)#Criteria; however, that is a proposed guideline, not policy.) The article is still a stub and needs additional work, but I think these edits deserve a second look, at least. —Chidom talk  07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Now with this new information the notability is verfiable and obvious, so this discussion should be closed with a Keep.Courtney Akins 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per Chidom. --Dweller 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, won an AVN award and passes any reasonable requirement for notability. Kappa 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AVN award, and strongly recommend closing admin keep in mind how late this evidence came to light. I also concur with Everyking and am not convinced a description of sexual activity amounts to a plot summary. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering the AVN award, this article should probably be kept (I promise I'll stop switching sides on this one), but I'm still not convinced that describing the act can be anything but a plot summary, and is much less than a full plot summary, thus making the description of the act on its own even less worthy of existence as an article as a plot summary would be. BigNate37(T) 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment From what I could find in trying to clean up the article, the emphasis of this series is definitely the act itself, and may qualify as a sub-sub-genre of the "oral" sub-genre (assuming such exists, I'm a bit out of my element, here). That being the case, what else (generally) should be in an article along those lines? (By the way, if you're going to stop switching sides, I'll stop cleaning up articles that I don't particularly care about. ;-P So there.)—Chidom talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep won an AVN award... that makes it notable.  ALKIVAR™ 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Whole different comment I'm not seeing evidence that many of the editors have revisited the article and reviewed their recommendation since the article was cleaned up. Is this something that should be given some attention? Or do we generally just let the process well enough alone and hope that people who made a recommendation put this AfD article on their watchlist and are aware of the changes? In any case, it might be nice to have them add "reaffirm recommendation after changes" to their original comments. Just a thought.—Chidom talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And another Unless I can't count, this is eligible to be closed; it has been more than 5 days since its nomination.—Chidom talk  00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, it can be closed. However, admins aren't paid, so you can't yell at them for being late on this one; it's all voluntary. I'd close it, but as I've participated in the debate, I won't. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since notability has been provided through the AVN award, I agree this should be kept. Gwernol 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Since this is a discussion and not a vote, the closing administrator should pay close attention to the comments made by those who have not visisted this article since it has been revised. AVN award winning titles are obviously notable. RFerreira 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Discounting the socks, etc, we have Doctorbruno arguing for retention and another on the basis "it exists" which was refuted by Kinu. Furthermore, our Kerala Wikipedians, in particular the investigation of Tintin leave me to delete, without any doubt.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiricheppu

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This appears to be unverifiable. Verify tag was removed by anon. Created by User:Cartoonist jithesh who appears to be the eminent cartoonist-cum-writer referred to in the article.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment AfD tag removed by a new editor - thanks for restoring it. Dlyons493 Talk 08:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pure vanity. The magazine and its author S. Jithesh are non notable. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources indicating any sort of notability; doesn't seem to meet WP:BK. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - what is the ground for your suggestion for deletion of an article about the cartoon magazine. chiricheppu is the one and only Political Cartoon Magazine in malayalam.why you are fighting against cartoons and cartoon magazines.we wikipedians are consider that you and your friends are acting as the tools of some nasty politicians who are totally against Chiricheppu .I think this magazine is working as a terminator which destroying anti-social elements in the society.Afer Asadhu and Sarasan magazines Chiricheppu is blooming laughter in the minds of malayalam readers. malicious intention to defame a magazine surely comes under the provisions of cyber crime.search for the details of judgement of keralas firstly filed cyber crime in pathanamthita district court. --Adv. sreekumar, High Court, kochi
— Possible single purpose account: Adv sreekumar (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete -I love walking in the rain Because nobody can see me crying....Chaplin .Did this word touched any heart?Every smile has a story of tears behind... .We the loving readers of chiricheppu tries to realise this truth. go ahead ......No one can delete you from the minds of readers.why people are becoming so much monster-eyed sadistic . why we have to put off the streamig lights of virtue.remember friends....it is very easy to desroy.but creaion is devine and difficult

Nileena joseph,a great fan of poetry and cartoons

  • Delete. I'm still not seeing any demonstrated notability; there are some claims, but I'm not sure if it's backed up. A scant 65 ghits [45], the top result of which is en.wikipedia, and several of the upper results appear irrelevant to this context; zero hits at gnews [46]. This just doesn't seem to have a very big footprint, to me; sorry folks. This isn't a commentary on the comic, I'm sure it's great and I hope you enjoy it, it's just that we don't really have room to write out an article on every comic ever written -- there has to be a line, somewhere, and I'm not yet convinced that Chiricheppu has passed that line. If you'd like to try and change my mind, it would be wise to link to various websites which will support your points. Thanks for your time, everybody, and have a good one. Luna Santin 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Please note that Google do not have reports about Non-English entities. Also most of the Indian media and personalities are not covered by English Media and not covered by GoogleDoctor Bruno 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's not mentioned on any English pages, it'll be pretty difficult to find reliable sourcing. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Luna Santin. There are no sources where this could be verified.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in this form and if verifiability is not fully achieved after this discussion ends totally non-notable and non verifiable. The so called advocate from high court who has supported this seems to have no knowledge on wiki norms and seems to be a sock puppet. Also the remark on political interference is a general sickness of all malayalees. Whenever something happens which we do not like in kerala, we blame it on politics and the "hidden political hand". So these arguments are very stupid. Wiki cannot be controlled by such sick thoughts. Also the argument on "malicious intentions to defame" is silly as the magazine as such has no repute in the first place! Here all wikians have a right to defend what we feel and this does not paramount to any malicious intentions to defame and is outside the purview of any court.Since the editor of this magazine himself put this article here there is no case of "malicious intention to defame" as nothing objectionable has been published against him or the magazine here on wiki. I doubt this Sreekumar is an advocate. If he was he would not have made such foolish threats. Let him make such observations in the court. This is cyber space not a court! If he is so passionate on what he reads let him provide verifiable proof on the claims that it has 50000 circulation and such. This magazine does not have any state or national repute. It is just one of those yellow journalism magazines. Wiki is no place for such magazines. There are thousands of such magazines in Kerala. If all the editors of such magazines start to adverise their own names and their magazines on wiki we all would have to hang our faces in shame. Request to the advocate to come up with more solid material on web for supporting his claims. I will surely rethink my opinion if this article is well supported by the end of this discussion, instead of silly hollow claims. If you are an advocate prove it by doing some research and work on collecting evidence. See how the artcle on Pradip Somasundaran was retained after the discussion gave way to the much needed evidence.Take this for encouragement. GlueWhale 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable Doctor Bruno 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep - I spoke to few guys in AIMS and they know the magazine and the cartoonist very well.Doctor Bruno 10:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) See below for the changed vote

'Don't delete'.....because the cartoon lovers accepted the magazine as their pulse to gag the society. Chiricheppu stands as a good social worker to keep every malayalam readers in smile. We are using it as a panacea for every tensions. We don't forget their endievour and contributions in the field malayalam publications. So my suggession is that do not cancel the grate canvas of our cartoonist and the laughing canvas of over mind. Rajkumar Kuruppu59.93.8.209 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: From the above comment, one would think that those recommending deletion are trying to get rid of the cartoon itself instead of the article. At any rate, unfortunately, without any sort of verifiability as to the claims in the article, it cannot stand. I suggest spending more trying looking for sources indicating any sort of notability, rather than trying to sway us with anecdotal generalizations as to how great the cartoon itself is. --Kinu t/c 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- if it was notable, it would appear in at least one newspaper report which should be googleable. Id it is in Malayalam, I'm sure our editors conversant in Malayalam can track it down online. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - According to the Official Government of India website [47] this is a magazine published from Adoor. Hence that settles the verifiability part. The only question that remains is Notability.Doctor Bruno 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - the magazine does exist, which is a big step forward. That site also has a section for publishers claimed circulation but Chiricheppu doesn't seem to make any claims for itself. All the above established Indian editors seem agreed that it is non-notable so, unless some reliable sources can demonstrate notability, I'll leave the AfD nomination stand. I'll be happy to withdraw it if even a relatively weak demonstration of notability can be made. Dlyons493 Talk 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment- Dlyons, that it has been listed as a magazine is not the issue. Any indian magazine has to be registered with "Registrar of Newspapers" for official recognition and legality for publication in India. There are thousands of such magazines. So this finding is not big game. Even I have seen and read the magazine and have liked it! "Crime magazine" a yellow magazine is more notable than "Chiricheppu". So will we all support an article by its Propreitor tomorrow on Wiki? Wiki is not a place for self publicity and praise. It's also not a place for free publicity. There are norms here. We all should entertian articles only on wiki norms. There is no place for sympathy or it being good for health or society. Wiki works only on facts not on personal emotions. This is an Online Encyclopedia. Not a Malayalam Daily for putting ads! Do not forget this. GlueWhale 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Kinu: lack of reliable sources indicating notability. -AED 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can someone search for Audit Bureau of Circulation India's figures for this magazine. There is no stats on the web. Someone may have to physically search it . i.e. that is if someone has the report, please publish the figures for it over here. If it is selling more than 50,000 copies, then keep it, otherwise nuke it. I must add, when I was in Kerala, most children bought Balarama magazine, which must be the largest selling cartoon weekly in Kerala. --Ageo020 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Adv. Sreekumar maybe User:Cartoonist jithesh. This link [48] which shows that the cartoonist S. Jithesh is addressed as Advocate in his home page and also his email shows this. The S in his name could stand for Sreekumar. --Ageo020 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Very non-notable. I actually went and checked a few small book stalls in Ernakulam over the weekend to see what it looks like but couldn't find any. These sort of magazines usually sell mostly in bus and railway stations where the travellers pick them up for reading during the journey. I can tell you that as of 1.30 pm last Sunday, the book shop in the Ernakulam busstand had Hasyakairali and three editions Bobanum Moliyum among comedy magazines, but it had no Chiricheppu ! If it does not sell in the main bus stand in the largest city in Kerala I am surprised that it sells any, let alone 50000, copies. There is also a possibility that it had sold out everywhere, but that is a little far-fetched. Tintin (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Do not delete. it is crystal-clear that someone who have vested interest who are trying to attack and defame this cartoon magazine.all the people who have good reading habits know this magazine.balrama comes under the category of childrens magazine. not under the category of cartoon magazine.someone who commented here that chiricheppu is a yellow magazine.what a stupid comment.most of the commented person are introduced themselves as people from other countries such as ireland ,australia.someone are forcing them to comment on this people. how the people from other countries can judge a magazine in malayalam.we -the kerala people is familiar with this magazine.chiricheppu is the unique political cartoon monthly in malayalam language.someone thinks that defamation is not a crime in cyber space.calling a cartoon magazine "yellow magazine" is highly defamatory.the cyber crimes in the country were booked under the Indian Penal Code,(sec499and500) rather than the Information Technology Act. computers were used to commit acts of crimes such as defamation is punishable both under indian cyber law and indian penal code.any person has the right to edit wikipedia.but no one has the right to spread defamation against a reputed magazine.the aim of wikipedia is great.one who is doing research on the history of cartooning it is really worthy to read the article published about Chiricheppu in wikipedia.how many political cartoon magazines are now available in malayalam...? please tell me friends...!Only Chiricheppu.that is why we the readers of chiricheppu is against deletion.any type of imputations published will hurt thousands of readers of chiricheppu.recent defamation case on cyber space is also cited hereunder:Fighting cyber crimes

Conviction in a cyber case in Pathanamthitta recently has increased the confidence of the public to file more such cases, writes Anand Haridas(The Hindu news paper reports)

After a couple of arrests of foreign nationals on charges of spreading defamatory matters, more people are coming forward to file complaints, say city police officials.another case: TRIVANDRUM - The Kerala police have made a mark in dealing with cyber crimes with the arrest of a 45-year-old former pastor and his son in a case related to the alleged defamating the chief of the Indian Pentecostal Church T.S. Abraham by using the new technology. The former pastor, T.S. Balakrishnan Nair alias T.S. Balan, who was associated with the Sharon Pentecostal Church, was arrested from his residence at Perumbavoor by the Pathanamthitta Police for spreading defamatory matters about Mr Abraham and his family members, including his daughter, through cyberspace.recently both the accused were punished for an imprisonment of 7years.


Babupaul

— Possible single purpose account: Babupaul (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What does any of this have to do with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR? By the way, Wikipedia is not here for the people of Kerala, it's for everyone. And I'd cool it with the legal threats; it's doubtful that it's going to accomplish anything except getting you blocked. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DONT Delete.The vested interestsmhas been doing some foul play for deleting the contents.They should be banned from these henious work against a noble magazine.The notability and the reach of a magazine is measured through the popularity & its circulation,the credibility of the editor & management and its stand in social issues.in all these repects chiricheppu is at par with any magazine in india.Among the cartoon magazines, its a boon to cartoonists and readers comprising different tastes and intellect.whether the entertaintment part or the social cause,they have done their job magnificiantly.its the requiremnet of the generation that more people speaking different languages and lives across the globe be aquainted with this flag bearers of humanity.the reach & notability of the magazine is evident from the support its getting from the notable personalities and readers in this issueFundoomal 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Fundoomal (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, a widely circulated and critically acclaimed magazine would probably be notable. But that's exactly the thing -- I haven't yet seen any evidence that this magazine is either of those things. Your claims would be far more convincing if you backed them up with links to reliable websites; please take a few moments to do so. Thanks. Luna Santin 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't DeleteFrom the interest only particular users of wi-kipeadia for the deletion of the article its evident they have personal interest in deletion.i have been to ernakulam and from the railway station i bought chiricheppu.if my dear frnd tintin din't get it from there that means all the copies were sold out .guys why you want to delete this genuine article.

Comment That any fool can edit wikipedia is just a wish. The wikipedian admins are experieced people who constantly monitor it's content and they have all rights to decide on what is right, and what is wrong. It cannot be decided by some ignorant guys who pose themselves as IAS officers sometimes, and as Advocates some other times. It's a shame to the official community that those who are holding high positions do not even know how to write good english! So stop playing games here. Even if you put hundreds of comments here under different names, you will be still be caught red handed by the poor quality of your english! Please spend this valuable time in trying to improve your writing skills, and finding proof for it's notability instead of foolish legal threats. These threats will not hold as it's not in your right to put any stupid article here. Wiki has norms and will work only on norms not emotions. Regarding defamation, it's you who put this article here in the first place and now you are threatining those who oppose it's inclusion! Opposition does not amount to defamation. No one has said that your magazine does not exist or is not a cartoon magazine. There are thousands of such magazines in the "petti peedikas" all across Kerala which are bought by the layman, just to kill time. These do not contribute to any new knowledge of the reader. If you want real quality, read and see R.K Laxman's works. Where is he, and where is S.Jithesh of Chiricheppu! In Kerala there are only a few cartoon magazines. "Hasyakairali" is a better cartoon magazine than Chiricheppu. In the begenning Chiricheppu started off with much fanfare using inputs from the literary world. But now the state of this magazine is really alarming with most of Jithesh's cartoons not up to the mark. So the claim of 50,000 copies is not true. Support your claims, instead of resorting to lame threats and sock puppetry. I am from Kerala and so your allegation that all those who oppose this article live abroad is totally baseless. GlueWhale 07:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment about In the begenning Chiricheppu started off with much fanfare using inputs from the literary world. But now the state of this magazine is really alarming - So you knew the existence of this magazine and perhaps have read that ??!! Interesting !! If so then that settles the debate. The magazine as well as the Cartoonist are perhaps notable, at least for the cartoons not up to the mark Doctor Bruno 09:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did he say that it did not exist ? Please read his comments with the timestamp "17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)". Tintin (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Please don't make it a personal issue. The following words totally non-notable and non verifiable made one assume that there is no magazine at all or that the user has not heard about that (may be I was mistaken in assuming like that) but at the present scenario it is very clear is
  1. There is a magazine called Chiricheppu, published every month in Kerala
  2. There is a person called Jithesh who draws cartoons in that magazine
  3. One of the independent editors of Wikipedia (not a single purpose account) has read for a long time that he has noticed that In the begenning Chiricheppu started off with much fanfare using inputs from the literary world and now the state of this magazine is really alarming with most of Jithesh's cartoons not up to the mark
That settles the notability issue at least to me. As far as I know there are no fixed criteria (like circulation of 1 lakh - readership of 50 lakh etc) for including an article about a magazine in Wikipedia. Hence, we have to follow the dictum of If in doubt, keep and hence I am changing my vote to Strong Keep Also it is very clear that this magazine is non-notable in Uganda, Canada and Sikkim. What is the logic behind deleting an article about a malayalam magazine telling that it is not notable among Mr.Singh, Mr.Adolf and Mr.Hamaguchi. We should only see whether it is notable among Thomas, Varghese and Nair, it does not matter whether the standard was "once good" and "now bad" Notability does not differentiate between notable yesterday and notable today. Please note that I have not seen or read the magazine (I don't know Malayalam) but I am giving my opinion based on the opinion given by one user from Kerala Doctor Bruno 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is also not notable among Tintin, Deepujoseph, GlueWhale, Ageo020 and Raghu, who are all from Kerala. This article has not received support from a single editor from Kerala (excluding the "new" guys) who commented on this. Tintin (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Even I have not seen that magazine so far. What I am telling is that just because I have not seen something or because I don't know about that, it is not that it is non-notable (Sorry if there are too many 'not' - the message is just to lighten up the mood)Doctor Bruno 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Dr. Bruno, you are trying to slam my mouth down with wild imaginative meanings that you cooked up from my words. I have never said that I used to read this magazine regularly. Do not force words into my throat. Have you read this magazine? No. Then do not decide for others on whether this is notable or not. There are thousand of such magazines in Kerala, that I may have seen or read once in a while. This does not mean that all of them are notable. I have seen lot of "yellow magazines" on railway platforms and bus stands. Just because I have seen them, know the names and know about them does not make them notable. Most of them may be trash. Are you saying that we ought to host articles on every comic book, children magazine, cartoon magazine and trash from Kerala just because they exist? This is not what Wiki is for. So let malayalees in kerala decide on what is notable and what is not in their state. One who has not even seen it cannot decide on our behalf my friend. Let them come up with solid proof. Let some leading news paper comment on the "fighting for justice" aspect. Has this magazine received any awards? Has the cartoonist of this magazine received one? Well none of the protagonists(prtagonist) above are giving any proof except blindly stating that "do not delete". Lets decide this issue based on the out come of solid proof. Not just because it just exists. Mere existance is not a stamp of notability. Am not personally against this magazine or the cartoonist. Let's just follow Wiki norms. Personal opinions do not count. We have a job to do. If they come up with relevant information including citations keep it or else not. That's all. By the way the usage "vested interests" has now become stale. Every fool in Kerala who is not happy with his own state of affairs blames it on "vested interests". That's the root cause of all stagnation in Kerala. It's a lame and lazy excuse for your own shortcomings. We do not try to find what's wrong with ourselves. We blame it on others! GlueWhale 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cool down..... I am also not personally for this magazine. Just giving my view. I have clearly said that I have not read or seen this magazine. Please don't misunderstand me. And I fully support your view that let malayalees in kerala decide on what is notable and what is not in their state If you can see this is what I meant when I had alread said only see whether it is notable among Thomas, Varghese and Nair. This is a policy (notability decided by persons from that field only) which I would like to be on Wikipedia. But I am a little amused and curious when this advice (Then do not decide for others on whether this is notable or not) is said ONLY at me and not for others who might have never visited Kerala but has voted for deleting this article for the past few days. So if I am voting for delete, I can be any where, but if I am voting for keep, I should be a malayalee in kerala.... Is it like this.... Doctor Bruno 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And you idea of writing an article for "Crime" definitely seems to be a good Idea. When we already have articles on Playboy and Debonair (magazine) why not one on "Crime" :) Doctor Bruno 12:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sure Doctor, let me buy the latest version of the same and then improve my writing skills; and when I feel that I have achieved the writing abilities of the Editor of that magazine, I will give it a try! Be surely there to support my article when it comes up for deletion like this one here:-) Am cool Dr....be calm...And Thomas & Varghese belong to the same community of Christians....got it wrong on this one. Not like Dick & Hary Dr. :-) The advice was not meant only for you, was a general remark. Also I would never comment on something which I was ignorant of. GlueWhale 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment This page is a discussion and a place of debate. Calling a magazine a 'Yellow Magazine', hence is a person's opinion. This cannot be prosecuted under Defamation or Slander laws. Please do not threaten other users using any section of IPC. Also, please do not make passionate comments like S.Jithesh is a great cartoonist or Chiricheppu is the light of all Malayalees. Such comments do not hit the nail on the head and will serve no purpose in this AFD. If you want this article to be kept, please give us the facts. I understand that google cannot search malayalam pages, so if you can give us any newspaer articles in malayalam which shows any relevance for Chiricheppu, it will be appreciated.

This comment is intended for the supporters (single purpose account) of Chiricheppu --Ageo020 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Commenthai! here is the evidential fact which you asked for, to quench your doubt about 'chiricheppu'..see the famous article named "jeevitham enne enthu padippichu" of SAMAKALINA MALAYALAM (Weekly owned by INDIAN EXPRESS) published on 15 october 2005 and I think it is suffice to appease your dubious attitude against CHIRICHEPPU and I strongly suggest you to restrain from the delibrate enimical attitude against the Chiricheppu. Geethu das.
    Can you please scan the page and upload it for every one to seeDoctor Bruno 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Magazine appears to exist, while this piece may need editing for NPOV, I see no reason for it to be removed James68 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Mere existence is not a criterion for inclusion, per interpretation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kinu t/c 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Even after repeated pleas Dr. Bruno, James,...seems all the chiricheepu supportes have vanished after the IP bans, proving the single account theories. Even otherwise no one has yet bothered to produce any substantial evidence other than just making passionate claims and threats. No more activity here folks. Better decide on whether to keep or delete. GlueWhale 11:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DONT DELETE--- Thank you wikipedians for giving more information about chiricheppu.am a research student.my subject is history of cartoon magazines in malayalam and history of cartooning in kerala.the information on chiricheppu was very useful to me.expect more on this magazine and other cartoon magazines in kerala.if you can publish i have the statitics and details of the cartoon magazines in kerala.Sunith chandran 10:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)User's first contribution. Welcome to Wikipedia!

DONT DELETE---CHIRICHEPPU- The humourous leading monthly in Malayalam plays a wonderful role in the history of malayalam journalism. It has developed a unique style of constructive criticism on social, political and cultural issues with brave,bold and brivity.This magazine is available in almost all leading libraries,press clubs, educational institutions and book stalls.With my long experience as an editor and cartoonist in leading news papers and journals, I strongly recommend the name of CHIRICHEPPU should not be deleated. Dr.MADHU OMALLOOR (Editor-in-Chief & Cartoonist- WITNESS, The Analytical English Magazine of India, Thiruvananthapuram-6)User's first contribution. Welcome to Wikipedia!


No use in only having the statistics. Please show to usDoctor Bruno 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
And, a request to all NEW Users. The words you have to use is "Keep" or "Strong Keep" and not "Don't delete"Doctor Bruno 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Dr. bruno, your plea for evidence seem to be falling on deaf ears. The same person seems to be commenting under different names as is clear from the bad english usage. See the "Editor in Chief" of "The Analytical English magazine of India" who gave his valuable time to comment here, and see the standard of English he uses here! I would definitely fire such Editors, if I were the owner of the magazine! I think it's due time to take a decision. We are not going to get any evidence and nor are we going to have genuine users giving their opinions.

GlueWhale 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Article is a POV and contain almost no usefull information. Subj itself non notable. TestPilot 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S. Jithesh

Unverifiable vanity article created by User:Cartoonist jithesh whose only edits are to this and related articles. See also Chiricheppu on AfD.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable cartoonist. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VANITY, no verifiability from reliable sources that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable, unverifiable vanity. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a self advertisement of himself and his magazine.GlueWhale 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete well, per everyone --Spartaz 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per GluewhaleDoctor Bruno 03:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep - I spoke to few guys in AIMS and they know the magazine and the cartoonist very well.Doctor Bruno 10:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I found another article titled S.Jithesh today with the same content. I have redirected that page to the current article. So if the result is delete then please delete the redirect too. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 05:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone --Spartaz 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You have already placed your delete vote before. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - for some reason I couldn't see the vote when it refreshed. User error no doubt :) --Spartaz 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem - To err is human - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centre for Research on Globalization

Non-Notable. Mmx1. 153 unique google hits. 02:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

quotation marks, you mean. That's exactly what I searched for. And if you scroll to page 15 it shows you it's actually 153 unique hits. --Mmx1 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... What is a unique hit? --Striver 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"Other sites that link to this site: 3,057 " --Striver 03:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in a Canadian context. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is important to note that the unique google hit count refers to the number of unique hits returned within the top 1000 pages that google samples. As a rough estimate, take the unique count as a percentage of the overall number of pages returned: in this case, 14% or so, or 15,000. Eusebeus 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per TruthbringerToronto. -- Szvest 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and a self published blog at that. The site is misleading as its just a collection of news reports from other sources and self published articles. There is no "Centre" --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable site offering political commentary from the Land of the Maples. Idleguy 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per {{db-band}} Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precision Devices

Lack of notability -- band is not yet signed, hasn't produced an album. Seems purely self-promotional. Kebnabi 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. I see no reason why this doesn't fit under CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 05:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable band. -- Gogo Dodo 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Tagged as such. Molerat 09:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge, which was completed before this debate was closed. Shell babelfish 08:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United 93 Acclaim

WP:N. Text deleted from United 93 (film) discussed at Talk:United 93 (film)#It.27s_time_to_add_a_Critical_Acclaim_Section_for_the_article Clappingsimon talk 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand why it is nominated for deletion? Could you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.0.112 (talk • contribs)

  • Merge content back into United 93 (film). It should be possible to fit most of this content back into the main article. --Metropolitan90 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Frankly I think the section already in United 93 (film) is sufficient, although I wouldn't strongly object to a merge if others want that. BryanG(talk) 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete already covered in main article. 24.18.214.147 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to main article. -- Gogo Dodo 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — Lets keep it in the same article people mboverload@ 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to main article. the wub "?!" 14:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to main article. The main article should include all the details mentioned in this one, it is to brief over there. I remember that the main article had this good explaination, but it was edited to a very small paragraph. The acclaim of United 93 is an event that currently is a highlight of the 2006 movie season, it need to be discussed in details. But if we merge this one, the article "Brokeback Mountain Awards" should be merge to the main article too. Let's be fair then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.214.147 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge as per above, and merge the Brokeback Mountain example too. If we don't have such split-off articles for all films, there is no reason to exhibit POV and pick-and-choose. 23skidoo 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Brokeback Mountain Awards is an extensive list of actual awards that film won. It is completely different from a list of critic's comments about a film. Brokeback Mountain Awards should not be merged. Clappingsimon talk 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In contrast to the hype on United 93 Acclaim, United 93 is rated as 14th best 'Top Movie' of 2006 by RottenTomatoes. Who ever merges the information back should be careful to maintain WP:NPOV Clappingsimon talk 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To Clappingsimon. Hype, where is the hype?, Clearly you nominated this article for deletion because you are biased. But now that you did this, we have to deal the situation. I can't see any hype on the article, it presents actual information based on the internet and no speculations, they are facts. Add the Rotten Tomatoes info to the article and nothing will change and it would be fine. List of "extensive" awards? There's the bias with BBM. Well, then, the U93 article says that the info will feature the awards and nominations that the film probably will receive. For your information the BBM artcle is titled "Brokeback Mountain Critical Reception" and has some quotes from critics after the Crash victory, if you are biased towards BBM then please don't manifest yourself thru Wikipedia, it is a shame!. Merge both articles to the main articles, its the only way to be fair. If not one, not all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.153.82 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment If it be my bias to see Wikipedia full of accurate articles, so be it. Please state your sources for this bit of non-hype "So far, no film in 2006 had surpassed the critical acclaim of United 93." BTW Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain shows the movie has received 30 major film awards and 20 more nominations. Happy merging. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Please state your sources for this bit of non-hype So far, no film in 2006 had surpassed the critical acclaim of United 93." A little statistics 101. Average is the sum of all terms divided by the number of terms. United 93... 90% at RT, 90% at Metacritic, 95% at BFCA = (90+90+95)/300 = 91.7%. If we do that with the other 13 movies over U93 in Rotten Tomatoes. Kexexelu Mountain Patrol: RT 98%, Metacritic 77%, No BFCA, Average:87.5%.// The War Tapes: RT 97%, Metacritic 76%, No BFCA, Average: 86.5%. // Iron Island: RT 96%, Metacritic 74%, No BFCA, Average: 85% // Wordplay: RT 95%, Metacritic 73%, No BFCA, Average: 84% // Little Miss Sunshine: RT 93%, Metacritic 78%, BFCA 94%, Average: 88.3% // Dave Chappelle's Block Party: RT 93%, Metacritic 84%, BFCA 76%, Average: 84.3% // Fateless: RT 93%, Metacritic 87%, No BFCA, Average: 90% // An Inconvenient Truth: RT 92%, Metacritic 74%, No BFCA, Average: 83% // Darwins Nightmare: RT 92%, Metacritic 84%, No BFCA, Average: 88% // Neil Young - Heart of Gold: RT 91%, Metacritic 85%, No BFCA, Average: 88% // The Death of Mr. Lazarescu: RT 91%, Metacritic 84%, No BFCA, Average 87.5% // Devil's Miner: RT 91%, Metacritic 81%, No BFCA, Average: 86% // and finally Shakespeare Behind Bars: RT 91%, Metacritic 74%, Average 82.5%. Well, to end the small discussion of the last two users, well I used Math, because math is accurate, and indeed United 93 is the film with the highest score of the year and Its true that no film had surpassed its critical acclaim, so can you argue mathematical results??. Well Mr. Clappingsimon how can all this information be added as a source? Because your statement after all is refuted by the statistics that I wrote on this comment. Plus, other films like The Godfather, Schindlers List that had won more awards than Brokeback Mountain don't have a separate article... Well, why according to you we had to make an exeption with Brokeback Mountain Awards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.1.121 (talk • contribs)
        • Your maths is completely wrong. If you're interested in an explanation of where you are going wrong, please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You really need an intensive class of basic statistics... Actually saying that a simple average of three numbers is wrong, take your calculator and verify "Your maths is completely wrong" Give me a break! Geez! Some people!
          • Your maths is completely wrong because you are not taking into account the numbers of cases in each %. It's an easy mistake to make. Just ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Eliminate the BFCA scores, and take the arithmetic mean to each movie (two cases) and still United 93 gets the higher score. And if we take in consideration the number of reviews per movie per website, United 93 has a lot more reviews than all the other films. In proportion it still the highest. There is no way you can refute the argument, Try to find a way to do so and I will accept it. I will not waste my time arguing about insignificant things. Merge it or delete, I simply dont care, to avoid saying another expression!
              • You just need to multiply each % by the number of reviews of U93 on that website, then divide by the total reviews of U93 on all websites. It's really that simple. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Sorry if I'm being a little rude, Im apologizing because you seem to be polite. Sorry Again. I'm doing it just like you are saying so, if I multiply each % by the number of reviews of U93 in Rotten Tomatoes, then divide by the total reviews of U93 on all websites and I do the same with Metacritic, i'll get two results, How I can incorporate them? " (RT% x #reviews) + (M% x #reviews) divided by the total of reviews?
                • It's the sum: (% * n1) + (% * n2) + (% * n3) / (n1 + n2 + n3) Clappingsimon talk 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 Don Mills (TTC)

Delete. As per the recent AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Coxwell (TTC) which was unanimous to delete, I am nominating the rest of the Toronto bus line articles in this omnibus Afd. They are:

  • 25 Don Mills (TTC)
  • 64 Main (TTC)
  • 70 O'Connor (TTC)
  • 72 Pape (TTC)
  • 81 Thorncliffe Park (TTC)
  • 91 Woodbine(TTC)
  • 92 Woodbine South (TTC). --Atrian 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good work catching all these. -Joshuapaquin 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dinosaur puppy 03:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; bus routes definitely don't merit their own articles. Bearcat 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all!! Nice work Atrian :) Thε Halo Θ 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, buscruft. the wub "?!" 14:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all; WP:NOT the bus schedule. One line mention of their existence at Toronto buses and trolley buses is more than enough, but NO redirects at all. --Kinu t/c 21:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's really only one notable bus/streetcar line in Toronto, and that's 510 Spadina (TTC). All these other ones are boring ole' everyday buses that go through boring ole' everyday Toronto neighbourhoods. -/- Warren 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to KLTY-FM. --james(talk) 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrate Freedom

Unsourced, un-notable local event. Delete. BlueValour 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folk beliefs about rain on a sunny day

Breaches WP:NOR. Delete. BlueValour 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also for being a collection of indiscriminate (or barely discriminate) information BigHaz 03:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — WP:OR. SynergeticMaggot 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NOR. Thε Halo Θ 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kinu t/c 21:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaboom TV Series

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. Danny Lilithborne 03:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete silly vandalism/hoax. If the creator has a history of posting things like this I suggest a talk-page warning followed by a block if it continues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. "$50,00,00,000 reward"... Yeah, sure... -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. --james(talk) 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krrish (superhero)

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. There's already an article about the movie Krrish which should suffice. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. --JoanneB 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westies (people)

Completing nom by IP User 203.91.245.97. No vote by me --Arnzy (whats up?) 04:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong if not Speedy Keep. Well-established word in Australia especially in Sydney. Concept which is well-established and is a well-known concept related to geography and class issues in Sydney.It is in the Macquarie Dictionary which defines it as
    1. a person, generally from an outer suburb of a city or town and from a lower socio-economic background. Compare barry2, bogan (def. 1), boonie, Charlene, Charmaine, feral1 (def. 9); Especially Qld bevan (def. 2); Chiefly Qld bev-chick; WA bog3; ACT booner; Tasmania chigger2.
    --adjective 2. of or relating to a westie or to westies generally: a westie shirt. Also, Westie. [from west(ern), referring to the western suburbs of Sydney, + -IE]
    Usage (language): From Sydney this word has spread throughout the country, despite the fact that the people so designated do not necessarily reside in the western part of an area. Capitalistroadster 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I would guess a "revenge" nomination because of Easties (people)'s nomination. -- Chuq 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It almost certainly is a nomination to make a point, given that the nominating editor has stated that xe "agree[s] with the Westies term not being deleted". See this edit by 203.91.245.97 (talk · contribs), which also implies that this is Mattabat (talk · contribs) not logged in. Uncle G 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would guess double standards. --WikiCats 03:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I only completed this incompleted nomination from a IP User, so I take no stance on this, and the related AFD. --Arnzy (whats up?) 03:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The over-riding issue for the article is the fact that for several months it has had POV and Original research tags. These major issues should have been resolved. They have not because they can not. The article does not comply with the guidelines. --WikiCats 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - about the only verifiable thing that can be written about this term is a basic definition. And as such it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. -- Mako 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - far too long for a wiktionary entry. not only the term is verifiable but also the people listed who identify as westies and the comparisons with similar words in other countries. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons outlined by BL. Widely used term and social phenomenon in both Australia and New Zealand. A lot of the article is verifiable. That which isn't should be edited and cleaned up, true, but I've never yet seen an article that should be deleted simply because it needs cleaning up. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue is that neither of these articles have any complimentary comments in them. Both Westies and Easties only contain derogatory remarks. This is a NPOV issue.

    The problem is that in the future with more common usage the Easties article will be resurrected even if it is deleted now. There are other terms such as Northies that are coming into more common use.

    We need to delete both of these articles now to put an end to this. As long as Westies exists it gives reason for other articles such as Easties and Northies to exist.--WikiCats 06:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment. Once we have verifiable evidence of usage of these other terms from reliable sources as we do with westies then we can write articles on them. We have enough verifiable information from reliable sources to write an article on the usage of westies. We don't on those other terms. We have articles on derogatory terms relating to race and gender amongst other issues so that isn't a reason for deletion. Capitalistroadster 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it does not, because the "if article A then article B" logic is flawed, and obviously so. Uncle G 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - you can't delete this article. It documents a well known term in Sydney's usage. Clean it up by all means, but this is not an invitation to delete it. (JROBBO 08:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong Delete This article breaks all three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) --WikiCats 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. It is ridiculous to compare this with Eastie, as "westie" is widely used, even outside Sydney, as shown by its inclusion in the Macquarie Dictionary. This article has unverifiable info, etc, but it could easily be trimmed so that it does not. Eastie couldn't. Verifiability is the standard, in this case. JPD (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Objection I object to major to changes including the removal of tags from the article. I believe the article may have been changed to ovoid its removal and circumvent the debate. --WikiCats 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion Uncle G 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The article was changed because I argued that it be kept because it could be better than it is. I don't feel this argument would have any integrity if I did not do what I could to improve the article. As Uncle G points out, this is normal practice. It is possibly true that as a result the argument may appear more convincing, but I think keeping the article in an inferior version in the hope that people will want to delete it is more likely to circumvent debate. JPD (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I made the point above "The over-riding issue for the article is the fact that for several months it has had POV and Original research tags." The same day the tags were removed.

Removing tags is a serious matter. To do it without consensus during a major debate is against the guidelines.

Further to that the guidelines say "It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." --WikiCats 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


The irony of what is going on here is hilarious. Obviously it was the Eastie type people who started this social vilification when they started calling people from the Greater West of Sydney “Westies” and writing all these invented definitions. But the whole thing backfired on them when the West started using the term “Easties” and the Eastie article was written.

Now that social vilification has been turned back on them they can’t take what they dish out. Unfortunately their obsession with social vilification is so great they are unable to take a decision to put an end to it now. --WikiCats 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not misquote the guidelines - they say that turning the article into a redirect may be interpreted as an attempt to hide the old content. They also explicitly encourage addressing issues such as POV and OR tags during the debate. You have completed missed my points as well. My point is that a Wikipedia article should be able to describe the "social vilification" and whatever else is associated with the term without participating in the social vilification. Removing the POV and OR material (and hence the tags) is the way to make the article do this better. We should not confuse using the term in a perjorative way with having an article about the term and portray this discussion as a battle between easties and westies. JPD (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    FWIW, I did quite a bit of tidying of the message and supplying of sources, as is common practice during AFD debates. There is nothing against the rules in it - quite the opposite in fact. To quote: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article. And as to my feelings on the Westies vs Easties topic, I've never heard the word Easties (it's not used here in New Zealand), so it's completely irrelevant as regards my views on this article. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


The point that has been over looked is that an Afd does not prevent debate. I challenged the major changes.

Some of the changes were very curious. For example the See also section was completely deleted along with the link to Easties. Very strange indeed or was it an attempt to circumvent the Afds.

When I mentioned "The over-riding issue for the article is the fact that for several months it has had POV and Original research tags." the tags were immediately removed and more non neutral prose was added.

Huge tracts were deleted.

The history shows that for several months I have been combing the the article, removing unreferenced material and rewriting in neutral prose.

Suddenly persons who have shown no interest in the article or its problems start massive rewrites in the middle of an Afd.

I have challenged the contributions and they are under discussion here.Talk:Westies_(people)#Major_removals --WikiCats 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously AfD does not prevent debate. Challenging the changes because there is an AfD going on does avoid debate. If you have indeed been removing all the non-neutral prose unreferenced material, then the NPOV and OR tags should not have been there anyway. The over-riding issue is not that the tags have been present for months, but that there has been POV and OR material present for several months. If this material is removed, then the tags should also be removed. I can't see any non-neutral prose that has been added, and you haven't mentioned any. As has been said several times already, it is quite normal for an article to have massive rewrites during an AfD, if the reasons given for deletion are that the article is of poor quality. This is what should happen when the state of the article is drawn to people's attention. JPD (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All well and good but the fact remains any contribution can be removed by any editor at any time, as I did. Then any disagreement goes to debate. Which is what has been happening for several days. --WikiCats 08:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Regardless of the presentation of the current article, it cites numerous sources for more than just a dictionary definition of the word. Ansell 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlondeLA

Advertising KenWalker | Talk 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports venues named after individuals

Major listcruft; we already have a List of stadiums and a List of indoor arenas - Brianyoumans 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I would disagree that this counts as listcruft at all, certainly not "major listcruft". fuzzy510 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, perhaps not major listcruft, but how about "Not necessary; I can't see any benefit in having a separate list for venues named for individuals, it is just one more list to maintain? This is just a combined subset of the two lists I mention. --Brianyoumans 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all stadiums are named after individuals, in fact most stadiums these days sell naming rights to corporations. I don't consider this listcruft. BryanG(talk) 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'd disagree with this being Listcruft. It is getting rarer and rarer to find arenas/stadiums/venues that are not named after companies, so I think this list will become more and more relevent. That said, I'd have no objections to a merge of somekind. Thε Halo Θ 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't consider this listcruft at all. BoojiBoy 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely not cruft, especially in the days of naming rights. SliceNYC 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of interest only to trivia-obsessed sports fans. Lazybum 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. Patken4 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If named after an individual, it is important to that individual and might help establish notability of said individual. If named after a company, serves as significant use of that company's name and serves to establish the possible notability of the company. Badbilltucker 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As said by others, this is an interesting and worthwhile list in the days when not corporately named stadiums are becoming fewer and fewer. Vickser 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is useful not major listcruft really Yuckfoo 17:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

Delete - Article was originally succesfully prodded, but then recreated by CJCurrie. The organization itself has little notability outside of its own members. Most of its Google hits are either promotional press releases or single name mentions in a CJN article. They seem to be not much more than a fringe group, one of any number of left wing independentist Jewish groups who make similar claims to "represent" the Jewish left. As someone who is involved at the national executive level of the Jewish community, I can tell you that I hadn't heard of this group until I stumbled across the article. IMO, the article itself is a vanity page. Perhaps, if they gain stature as the Congress of the "Left" they should be entitled to a page. But at this point, the organization does not meet any standard of inclusion criteria and is simply unknown in the community, completely NN. pm_shef 05:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's notable because it represents an opposition view. The news articles cited suggest that the Canadian media take this group seriously. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiably significant or notable. Press releases don't count. -AED 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — 61 google hits, they don't even have a website mboverload@ 08:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep group has been the subject of a debate in the pages of the Canadian Jewish News and has been referred to in news articles in that paper as well as in an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail[51], the Canadian equivalent of the NY Times or the Times of London. They have been referred to by the Canadian Union of Public Employees as evidence that the Jewish community is not unanimous in codemning CUPE for its position on an Israel boycott. See this article by CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan and are notable because their existence shows dissent in the Jewish community. They may have just over 100 members but so does the Muslim Canadian Congress. Ex-Homey 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a place for promoting a point of view. By claiming that this organization is notable "because their existence shows dissent", meaning that they are notable by virtue of their representing the "other side", you are demonstrating that this article is simply to promote a point of view. - pm_shef 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's rather convoluted logic. NPOV means we have to have a balanced viewpoint in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole - this means reflecting various sides of a debate even if one side is much larger than the other. No one is saying the ACJC is "as notable" as the CJC or B'nai Brith but they are notable because they represent a dissenting voice. Recognising that is not promoting their point of view, it's simply being NPOV as an encyclopedia. Similarly, if the Muslim Canadian Congress had the same general viewpoint as the Canadian Islamic Congress there size alone (about 100, same as the ACJC) might not make them notable enough for an entry but as they represent a dissident liberal voice in the Islamic community (against Sharia law, for separation of church and state, for same sex marriage) their notability is established. We shouldn't be pretending that the Jewish community in Canada or internationally is monolithic and speaks with only one voice, that is not only POV and one-sided but it discredits the Jewish community and we shouldn't be doing that.Ex-Homey 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The Muslim Canadian Congress is notable despite their numbers. No such notability exists for this group. TewfikTalk 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to concur. As the first congregation to remove the gender requirements for the local chapter of its B'nai B'rith, Temple Sholom in Eau Claire, Wisconsin without question was in the forefront of the "egalitarian" movement within Conservative Judaism, but I can't imagine even Homey arguing that the synagogue, the congregation nor the history of either, is even remotely sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article... [and even as I say that, I'm preparing for the sudden appearance of an article just to make a point...right here...] Tomertalk 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The group's involvement in debates concerning CUPE's boycott motion is enough to grant them status as notable. CJCurrie 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. The article Ex-Homey provides was apparently published in the Globe and Mail. Contrary to what Pm shef says, an article doesn't necessarily promote a point of view if it is about a point of view, even if a point of view is unique. Uniqueness helps establish notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. --Daniel575 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems notable enough. ED209 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Szvest 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article (not even one on wikipedia)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I cannot find anything verifyable from reliable sources. They seem to have attracted less press attention than my local lawn bowls club. The world at large does not seem to care about this group and there is nothing beyond press releases from them to construct an article around. Peripitus (Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The newspaper that is quoted has an opinion peice by the president of the organization NOT an article about the organization. There is a big difference. The opinion peice can only be used to show what Sid Ryan believe, nothing else. It is not the job of the globe and mail to confirm that he even represents an organization. There is no source that they organization exsists. Jon513 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm an inclusionist and have to stick to my principles. But this has dubious notability. --Leifern 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jon513's point about the difference between the org's president, and the org itself. The group is completely non-notable. Saying it even has dubious notability stretches the definition of the word 'dubious.' Bibigon 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have a number of Yahoo groups, does that make me notable? Avi 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, TewfikTalk 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established. It may be possible to merge some information into History of the Jews in Canada, or not. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Homey. Tomertalk 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, if they should need a nickel to buy a domain, I'll be glad to help. --tickle me 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Isarig 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity. Ayinyud 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. IronDuke 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity article about a non-notable organization. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having an article about an organization does not mean endorsing their views. Seems notable enough, and Wikipedia should be the place the public can find balanced and NPOV information (improve rather than delete the article if it is not NPOV!) Bertilvidet 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is somewhat notable - mentioned in news articles: [52], [53], but it does not seem that active. If the article is deleted, after they have had a few more newsworthy accomplishments, it would make sense to recreate the article. Also, it should be noted with some sadness that quite a few of the delete votes come from the anti-Homey squad. --Ben Houston 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Worth noting here that both the mentions in "news articles" are from pretty fringe sources; the Canadian Jewish News, and ZNet, a political action group. Additionally, a mention, even from a mainstream news org, does not equal notability. Bibigon 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — per CJCurrie. --Yakudza 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the ACJC is just one example of a significant development -- the growth of organisations willing to speak out as Jews against Israeli policy. Whether you agree with them or not, you cannot ignore the phenomenon. The proposal to delete seems to be an attempt to marginalise this viewpoint. But that is not the way to conduct a political argument. Leave the article on Wikipedia, and engage in any polemic on the talk page, or elsewhere. Don't abuse Wikipedia procedures for political ends. RolandR 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Loom91 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --james(talk) 11:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brownside

Appears to have become gang advertising page. Delete (speedy if there is a consensus to do it). --Nlu (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. They seem to have made lots of records, although the article has no discussion of tours. One record has been re-released (see http://www.redeyeusa.com/item.php?item_num=CD-PRRI-74800 ) and that page makes claims of impressive sales figures. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, Allmusic lists several albums out, including an AMG Album Pick and a re-release noted by Truthbringer. Other Google hits seem to indicate that the group was Eazy-E's only Latino hip-hop proteges, which may be notable considering the rapper's influence in the gangsta-rap genre and overall industry. None of the albums released was on a big-name indie label, though the article indicates a few songs were released on Eazy-E's Ruthless Records. A lot of this is borderline-WP:MUSIC at best, but I'm not going to wikilawyer this one. -- H·G (words/works) 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - that said, if it's kept, this article needs some cleanup, and some supervision to make sure it doesn't become a gang advertisement like Nlu has observed. -- H·G (words/works) 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anshul

This article is entirely unreferenced and apparent original research. John254 05:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - The name and its definition shows up on some Indian baby name sites[54], so some references could be added. I think the question at this point is if the name is notable enough to warrant an article. Unless some famous Anshuls can be dragged up, I'm inclined to think that it isn't. -- H·G (words/works) 06:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. utcursch | talk 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per UtcurshDoctor Bruno 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cirris Systems Corporation

advertising KenWalker | Talk 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted A7 Cowman109Talk 05:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marangello

{{ Unverifiable article concerning a non-notable group of players in a MMORPG. Cowman109Talk 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under A7. --Hetar 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookmarkall

Sigh. Processed meat products here. Blatant advertising that can't be dealt with more efficiently because there's no speedy criterion for spam. Also nominating Bookmark profile as the same stuff from the same User:Bookmarkall. Opabinia regalis 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Shikigami

While it first appears to be poorly written, the final few sentences show definitively that this is a hoax. Also, 0 Google hits. Dekimasu 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xtreme Wrestling Syndicate

totally nonnotable JB196 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, cmh 05:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Gah, even by the dirt-poor standards of online fantasy feds, this is non-notable. Only three unique Google hits, all three either this Wikipedia article or mirrors. [55] If this online fed is so insignificant it doesn't even have its own website (or section thereof) ... That being said, however, it's rather obnoxious that the article's been slapped with no less than ten warning boxes aside from the AfD. RGTraynor 07:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. -AED 07:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Anything with "Xtreme" in its name should be deleted. Also per above reasons. mboverload@ 08:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as yet another non notable wrestling organization. Thε Halo Θ 11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being utterly non-notable and having the most cleanup templates ever. the wub "?!" 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the guy above. Especially the cleanup templates (never seen more even in uncyclopedia) Macktheknifeau 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So can we get this deleted, please? Thanks in advance. JB196 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smashboards

I am a huge Super Smash Brothers Melee fan and an even bigger Smash 64 fan. I am also an inclusionist, however this is page poorly written (most of which is copied from the SSBM article). Also other fighting game forums which are equally big such as Shroyuken have been deleted. I personally feel these articles should be kept. However until the precedent is set they should either be deleted or rewritten. Plus Smashboards has been mentioned plenty in the SSBM article. Valoem talk 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, cmh 05:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, insufficient assertion of notability. --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also, starting an article with "Smash World Forums, also known as Smashboards, is a world famous video-game forum," read more like an ad then anything else. Havok (T/C/c) 13:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wally DiCioccio

non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Books published by self-publishing company (read:vanity publisher) [56]. Only significant Ghit seems to be a self-written bio. Ghits: [57]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. —Celithemis 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. I just Googled one of the fellow's two books [58], and five of the six hits are from his own websites. It gets more non-notable than that, but not by much. RGTraynor 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per RGTraynor Dlyons493 Talk 08:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom mboverload@ 09:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --james(talk) 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-autistic economics

Smells like neulogistic insufficiently-notable concept, so delete, but input, particularly from people acquainted with the area, is requested. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, I'm hardly an authority on economics, but the term does exist according to this recent article that I found using Google News ('Thousands of economists from scores of countries have also in various forms taken up the cause for broadband economics under the banner "Post-Autistic Economics"'). I'm not sure a "web-based" grassroots organization counts under WP:RS, but I think Adbusters does, as does the Guardian. Also a university-level backup of an old Chronicle of Higher Education article. Certainly this meets most notability standards at this point. -- H·G (words/works) 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It gets 230 hits on a Google Scholar search alone.[59] Vashti 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - even though the term is awkward, it does describe a vitally important way of looking at "economic phenomena". Except if someone can come up with a better term for these phenomena...
  • Keep. This is a movement with considerable pull in academic departments across Europe, and even in the United States. It is a near-social movement articulation of ideas that have circulated in an unorganized form in academic departments for decades. I concur that it would be wrong to delete it. todddc
  • *Keep. People feeling themselves related to this movement should certainly re-consider its name, but still the movement exists and is of growing importance, so it would be absolutely wrong to delete it
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queue etiquette

According to the article itself, there is no written guide to how to behave in a queue, so this seems like a pretty clear violation of WP:NOR to me. The article is a how-to guide for life, so it’s unencyclopedic, too. --Rob Kennedy 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT applies. RGTraynor 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Wiki is not a how-to guide. -AED 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Sandstein 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Thε Halo Θ 11:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE does not assert notability per WP:WEB, lack external media references to topic (i.e., WP:V --Madchester 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Interweb medley

This appears to be a non-notable, not-yet-web-phenomenon. It gets a mere 169 Google hits (as of 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)). It appears to fail Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day in principle (if "things made up on the web one day" is equivalent, and I think it is). The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless. It should be deleted for non-notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please read this article about the Wikipedia philosophy of inclusionism and reconsider call/votes to delete. --AStanhope 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (author)
Comment: Yeah, you lost me upon following that link when it said that deletionists need to get a life. That's not a philosophy, that's combat. RGTraynor 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I missed that part. My intent wasn't to insult you or anyone else - only to point you towards what I think is a good overview of the general philosophy to "when in doubt, keep." No combat from me. --AStanhope 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think you're reading too much into the "Inclusionists" article. The article is about the philosophy of Wikipedia inclusionists, and while it does illuminate the differences between inclusionists' and exclusionists' philosophies, it doesn't take sides and certainly doesn't stoop to insults. Luvcraft 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any insults on my part come from me alone and have nothing to do with whether or not I believe the inclusionist creed. As for that creed, my point is that if an article has already been created, is accurate and truthful and doesn't harm or liable anyone, why not let it stay? Note: When I went to the Wikipedia (my primary general information source) after seeing the BoingBoing post and entered "Interweb medley" into the search dialog, not only was no article returned, the standard Wikipedia plea for the user to CREATE an article if it doesn't exist was displayed. I chose to follow that invitation to create the article. As a community, we should err on the side of inclusion - else that message wouldn't appear. --AStanhope 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My comment was a response to RGTraynor's comment, not to yours. This nesting is getting confusing! :) Luvcraft 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • PWOOOSH! (sound of my head exploding) hehe --AStanhope 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The host site for that so-called phemonemon's web page has an Alexa rank of over 170K; notability not proven. RGTraynor 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The official website for Schindler's List has an Alexa rank of over 2 million. Should we delete that too? Luvcraft 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Schindler's List doesn't exist solely online. If it did and had such a low Alexa rating, that would certainly raise doubts of its notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You are incapable of backing down, aren't you? Have you nominated Claude Vermette for deletion yet? --AStanhope 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I told you that you are welcome to. I believe this subject is non-notable, and the other is notable. Obviously I may be in error, and an AfD would determine whether this is so neatly. Be my guest, but please stop disrupting the AfD to make a point. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the nominator states: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks cute, but no verification or sources that provide evidence of the this supposedly popular medley.-- danntm T C 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am the post author, and no - I'm not promoting anything of my own. I saw the song in question on BoingBoing and thought it dovetailed well into the Internet meme article(s) here - and indeed, many of the twelve songs drawn upon are covered in detail here. I marked it with stub tags to solicit a fleshing out over time. I put some time into the articleo and the inclusionist in me thinks that once the article is established and isn't causing harm it might as well stay. --AStanhope 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I had 1600+ edits as of June, 2006. --AStanhope 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It was it on BoingBoing, then it got linked to other place. --Sirkowski 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I knew it was linked on BoingBoing. I just don't think being linked by BoingBoing is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards: this BoingBoing article about a wifi router doesn't mean it merits its own Wikipedia article. Most bona-fide internet phenomena don't get Wikipedia articles because they're passing things or just don't get big enough. This isn't even yet an internet phenomenon, and any notability that it currently has is "instant" notability by borrowing from existing notable internet phenomena. That Cory Doctorow liked it doesn't make it any more notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's 4th edit. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No more obtrusive than articles on albums from obscure artists. The criteria cited above for article deletion, e.g. number of google hits, should not necessarily be taken into account as the song is new. The main reason for my vote: the article combines through linking many other quality articles. If the article in question is eventually removed, the original author should add info on the "Interweb medley" to the respective song articles. RFenno 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the song is new, then it is extremely unlikely to be notable ... which in this case it is not. RGTraynor 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: Clearly we differ in the importance of notability in making decisions such as this one. I have laid out the reasoning behind my vote. It takes all kinds.... RFenno 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that all but one of the songs covered in the medley have their own articles on Wikipedia suggests that a mash up of all of them is, in fact, noteworthy.Elijahdprophet 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's first edit. (To Elijahdprophet: Be aware that very new users' votes may be discarded by the admin when closing the discussion, for lack of a verifiable identity.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fair enough, thanks for the info. Elijahdprophet 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The song, if not at least notable, has the potential to become notable. Besides, it's well executed and catchy.--80.42.151.164 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: IP's first edit. (To the anon: Note that anonymous votes are generally not counted, for the usual reasons.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, the first-time user and anon shills aren't mine! hehe --AStanhope 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Since you bring it up, it is of note that RFenno is a real-life friend of yours, according to your RfA. I don't consider it meatpuppeting exactly, but the closing admin might weigh that. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, RFenno is a real life friend of mine. Is this a popularity contest? You'll note that I didn't disown him. You seem to be approaching this issue as some sort of a "winner take all" game. So much wasted energy, imo. --AStanhope 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete The memes themselves are notable, a list of the memes might be notable, but a song about the memes, not yet having notoriety itself, does not warrant its own article. --Mattarata 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I beg to differ. Being linked by BoingBoing and it's inclusion of internet memes is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. Note: this user has 48 edits.Bryce byerley 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Getting linked from BoingBoing doesn't make something notable in and of itself, and a link from BoingBoing is the only thing going for this song as far as notability is concerned. Neither the notability of the constituent parts nor the imagined potential for the medley to become notable are of any relevance whatsoever. N6 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For the same reason as Mattarata. How many of you heard about this song before this article? I know I didn't. Taboo Tongue 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hearing about something before reading about it in the Wikipedia isn't a valid test of notability. --AStanhope 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Try not to attack straw men. The reason stated is "same... as Mattarata". The comment about not having heard it is merely illustrative. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In two more days, the Google hits are up to 213 (with extras omitted; 16,300 without omission); seems to be growing. And I'll save you the trouble, user edits count is 120. I go in waves, you see...--Bltpdx 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: 44 more hits in two days? Gosh. At this rate it'll only take two or three years to become merely insignificant in terms of Internet memes, as opposed to completely off the radar screen. If it had added four thousand new hits in two days, that would be something. RGTraynor 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Now I remember why I don't get involved in these discussions. Can you point me to the article which backs up your contentions about hit-count requirements?--Bltpdx 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There are no hit-count requirements. It's an informal way of getting a quick guage of how much exposure it has in the wild, and not meant to be accurate or definitive either. More important is the standards for notability and verifiability by reliable sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment RGTraynor: Is sarcasm/mockery really appropriate for somebody who posts their opinion here? Have you lost sight of what we are doing here? --AStanhope 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The vanity article you wrote about your grandfather, Claude Vermette, only gets 143 hits in Google - the first of which is the article here on Wikipedia. Hardly seems notable, especially prior to your creating the article. Will you be proposing deletion for that article as well? By your standards it should have been deleted long ago. The inclusionist in me, however, says that since it does no harm, your article should stay. --AStanhope 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • You seem to be taking this personally and trying to make this personal. Please note that nobody owns articles and editors should not try to exert power over them as if they did. You are welcome to nominate Claude Vermette for deletion so that the community can discuss whether it should be deleted or kept. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
            • No - I am genuinely an inclusionist. I do not want to see the vanity article you wrote about your grandfather deleted. If you were to nominate it for deletion, I would vote Keep. --AStanhope 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Inclusionism is only one philosophy, not the only philosophy. Using inclusionist arguments will only sway inclusionists, who, presumably, would have voted keep before hearing such arguments. Unless you have anything new and policy-based to offer, I'd suggest you take a breath and let the process play out. If enough people agree with you (or you have new arguments that are based on policy) the article will be kept. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I think that the right thing for you to do at this point would be to withdraw this deletion request. You seem to feel very strongly about having this article deleted, however the reasons you have stated apply equally to the vanity article you've written about your grandfather and proudly displayed on your User page. One must conclude that you have other unstated reasons to seek the deletion of this article. I do not pretend to understand this. Why not withdraw the deletion request for now so that you may spend some time deciding whether or not this article is a legitimate intended target for your aggression? If, in time, you decide that it is, by all means renominate it for deletion. I would hope, however, that some time spent looking within yourself will shed some light on your real motivations. --AStanhope 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • As I said, nobody owns articles. This AfD isn't "mine", and judging by the response to this so far there are those who would have nominated it in my place had I not. Not only would withdrawing it be disruptive, but I have no authority to do so. (See "not mine".) Furthermore, impuning the motivations of another editor with whom you disagree is an ad hominem fallacy. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • Like this? "The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless." --AStanhope 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
                      • As that's a comment on the merits of the article ("if it walks and quacks like advertising, it's probably advertising") and not an attempt to discredit someone's arguments by attacking them personally, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am getting 12000+ Google hits for interweb medley and 14000+ hits for "interweb medley". Are you sure that you spelled it correctly when you searched? I know nothing about songwriting and recording but I doubt this creation was only a day start to finish - and since it utilized some sort of recording technology, I doubt it took place at a school. The "day" test is specious anyway, particularly with art or pop-culture or news events. Arbitrarily declaring the worth of something based on an uninformed third party's guess at how long it took is a yardstick for nothing. Some of the greatest artistic achievements in the world took less than a day... Some of the most narcissistic and lame took months or years. You get the point. I hope that nobody is still under the impression that I am the song's creator or have any connection with the song. I am a 36 year old parent and Wikipedia addict with at least 1600 edits made over the course of 20 months (the counter seems to be stuck at 1616 for me - I don't understand why). --AStanhope 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that I said "in principle". Like a zen koan, there is something of value to be gained by contemplating the why behind a Wikipedia essay that has high community acceptance. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I, for one, disagree that you're applying the principle correctly. None of the "checks" seem to apply - unless you're still arguing that AStanhope is the author of the song. Internet fads/memes seem to be well-established candidates for inclusion; this fad appears to be growing as we speak.--Bltpdx 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am a first-time editor AND a friend of the original author, which twin facts I understand would normally render my opinion rather meaningless. However, I am supremely confident that the raw power of my argument will prove impossible to ignore. Behold: There is a Wikipedia article for each of the songs in the Interweb medley, save one. Is a Wikipedia user who comes to read about Badger Badger Badger not ill-served if she comes away without the knowledge that Badger Badger Badger has been collected into the Interweb medley? RaulGroom 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has anyone here read WP:MEME (which was rejected as a proposal), or WP:WEB/WP:MUSIC both of which cover this subject fairly well? Testing through these guidelines fail to produce any significant support for the article. WP:WEB would support the article if it were to gain additional notability through an additional 1 or 2 media outlets other than boing boing. WP:MUSIC would seem to support converting the article into one based on the composer, should the song/composer become notable. I retain my delete vote above. Additionally I think both Saxifrage and AStanhope need to refrain from posting comments here unless additional questions are posed directly to them, they can present additional evidence, or the article is significantly modified. --Mattarata 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the sanity check on both counts. I'll take your suggestion to heart. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanie Greene, Mary Called Jeanie Greene, Joa-Bim

Also looking to delete related articles Mary Called Jeanie Greene and Joa-Bim. Obscure Canadian singer, 122 unique G-hits [60] - and even that much is fouled by a woman by the same name who's an Alaskan First Nations activist - who came out with only one album, which the article itself says failed to gain airplay or sales, and so fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. The other two articles are the album and its lead track, respectively. All three articles are scanty even for stubs, and haven't been expanded upon a month and a half after creation. RGTraynor 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The record was on Elektra Records, a major label. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all three articles. Unfortunately the artist, album and single are just another example of a one-nohit-wonder. fails WP:MUSIC by a long way per RGTraynor - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All Elektra or no, However, like its parent album Mary Called Jeanie Greene and Greene herself, it failed to make any commercial or airplay headway pretty much sums it up. Even major record labels make mistakes. — NMChico24 11:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all three Fails WP:MUSIC as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 11:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Eusebeus 13:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all — per nom & NMChico24 --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a reason WP:MUSIC requires two albums from a recognized label. Many performers manage one, like this, that sinks into oblivion. Fan-1967 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Tards

Neologism made up by users of an Internet bulletin board. Elmer Clark 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Note that Tard already exists, as a redirect to Retard, which correctly identifies the term as "colloquial, usually considered offensive". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Appears to be an attack page on people from Melbourne. --Spartaz 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — as neologism and attack page. Kalani [talk] 08:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Beef & Pizza

Prod expiring, but had a contention written in to the tag. Place seems to not be notable per internet searches, but that may not be representative of its actual notability in the real world. Listing for people who may actually know to state so, no opinion from me. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional delete: Needs some sort of WP:V indicating that it meets WP:CORP, which I cannot find, and that blog does not count. If none can be added by closure, consider this a strong delete recommendation. --Kinu t/c 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The external link for the official site and the external link for the blog seem to refer to two different restaurants, one in Mount Prospect and the other in Chicago. I may reconsider if this article gets a significant rewrite before the AfD ends. --Metropolitan90 04:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my original prod. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 09:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I thought this would be a speedy when I added the stub tag. Seems to fail WP:CORP. And noting that it gets more hits as "Mr Beef" is a poor excuse, 'cause that's a fairly common name. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ReverendG 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FreeMeter

Unremarkable software product. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • No Delete - Firstly this is not a commercial software its open source. This entry was not posted by the developer. The software is indeed a very remarkable software as we don't have one like this on the Windows platform. The entry is also not incomplete and details about the software and no one else. The article is not politically motivated and not an advertisement either. If even after all this we decide that this software article is not fit enough I will not try to repost. Please also review LightTray so that we can clear it off too as it is on similar lines. Yed 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete. Though WP:CORP doesn't apply, the proposed guidelines in WP:SOFTWARE are compelling & this program doesn't really meet them. I'd also like to discourage Yed from using WP as a platform for this blog. --Karnesky 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - Thanks Karnesky for pointing out WP:SOFTWARE it is more eligible than WS:CORP here. As for using WP as a platform for the blog if it does not add to the detail then its worthy of being removed from WP. I would just like to reiterate that the aim is not to make WP a platform for advertising and neither am I trying to make it one. Please, if the entries are in no way useful then it must be removed from WP. But the issue here is about a software not developed by me; nor am I trying to advertise to anyone. The author of the software is more than happy "not to have an entry in WP" [in his own words]. If somone would like to put WP:SOFTWARE to be used so strictly then we can actually find many many more of them which should have been filtered out too. Though this is not a an excuse but it definitely needs to be looked a little more thoroughly here. For a start why don't we try and see how many such similar open source tools are available or mentioned anywhere else in WP. Yed 8:59 14 August (UTC)
    • Reply As the author of FreeMeter, i have made no such statement quoted above, as anyone can see by the handy link to the post. So as i am being misquoted, i shall make my statement here for all to observe. I see no reason for FreeMeter to have a WP page, other than to reiterate its features and functions already available on sf.net, my projects official homepage, or google. I will not maintain this page myself with updates to FreeMeter, or be accountable for its accuracy, as i have enough to do already. There is a thread on FreeMeter's sf.net forums [here] for anyone who wishes to discuss this WP entry. --209.98.224.230 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netrik

Unremarkable software project. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seemingly abandoned, there hasn't been a release since 2004 [61]. the wub "?!" 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — {{db-bio}} - Glen 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (aeropagitica) has already deleted the article due to reason: {{db-bio}}. Kalani [talk] 08:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Hostetler

Originally listed as a speedy, but the template was removed by the author. To be fair, the article has gotten better since then - at least better formatted - but it's still a vanity article about a non-notable musician. Opabinia regalis 07:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article was speedily deleted at 07:50, 13 August 2006 by (aeropagitica) Brad Hostetler may be notable by virtue of the other bands he has worked with, but there's no way to tell now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melody Rain

New article does not cite sources. Request for Speedy A7 was denied but further research does not produce any evidence that this person exists. The first few pages of a google search do not throw her up. Nor does a search on the name of the claimed album. There is no IMDb entry under her name and all of the links lead nowhere except for one that is parked. In short if this isn't a hoax this person is clearly not notable. I did warn the author to come up with soem sources, but haviong slept on this last night I'm of the mind that this should be listed as it stands. Spartaz 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. Failing that, it certainly fails WP:MUSIC as non notible. Thε Halo Θ 11:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "She is best known for being in background scenes..." Uh, we call that an extra, not an actress (if it's true), which would explain the lack of an IMDB page. Fan-1967 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, That's So Ravencruft, fails WP:MUSIC. She's also just an extra. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:V. --Satori Son 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, recreated. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Van Ryn Boys

This article, under the name -The Van Ryn Boys- has been deleted several times. The User Schatman is the only one who has edited this current page, and on his Userpage/talkpage HappyCamper reminds Schatman that the Van Ryn Boys has been deleted several times and nicely refers him to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Delete per non notable. rhmoore 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and protect as {{db-repost}}. Sandstein 10:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a repost, and a stern warning to Schatman. Thε Halo Θ 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weekly Top 20

Extremely overblown claims for the site not borne out after a visit. No awards listed, its a geocities site so certainly doesn't and can't have a particularly high number of visitors. Appears to fail WP:WEB, WP:VAIN and is not - to me anyway - the slightest bit notable. smells strongly of autobiography Spartaz 08:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 08:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Pruneautalk 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, fails WP:V. Shell babelfish 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ma Yu, Cai Xi, Guan Li, Han Li, Ma Fa, Guan Hei, Su Ye

WP:V This is one of a series of interlinked articles about warriors in the three kingdom period of China. No sources on any of them, and I can't find any suitable Google confirmaton. Prod removed on first one, so it's afd'd Clappingsimon talk 08:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Ma Yu per WP:V. Article provides no sources whatsoever. --Satori Son 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought these might be characters in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but I can't find any evidence of that either. There's a Ma Yu character -- see e.g. [62], but it doesn't match the bio given here. Mike Christie (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21 Century Job Service Company

Goog;le search on the company name reveals zero hits in English. As such it can clearly never be notable for the English Wikipedia however notable it may be in Korea. the article is also unredeamably incoherant (like my spelling) and the best thing to do seems to be to delete and restart with some sources Spartaz 08:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — ZERO results on 5 DIFFERENT search engines. Probably a hoax mboverload@ 08:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Author of the page has removed the AFD header and redirected to 21 Agency Company but still no google hits. I have restore the template and warned the author (he has a multiple form for this appearantly). How do I include the new article in the AFD or do I need to list it separately? Obviously it makes sense to have the dicussion together. --Spartaz 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a hoax or failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V and notable nicknames are in subject's articles already. Shell babelfish 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of pejorative political puns

List of pejorative political puns was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pejorative political puns.
See also Libtard (AfD discussion) and Repug (AfD discussion).

Second AfD I guess. Horribly unsourced, the only reason it exists is to catalogue insults (many of which I agree with). Any one of these lines could be completely made up, and some of them probably are. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of completely unsourced insults. mboverload@ 08:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Name puns are something a six-year-old can come up with, we don't need a repository for them. BTW how is "Idiot Son of an Asshole" a pun of Bush? Gazpacho 09:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Arguably it could be some reference to a vagina being a son of an asshole, but really I have no idea. --Wafulz 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup — I suggest moving all the so-called puns that do not have a reference link to the talk page and requesting a source. Many of these seem pretty inane. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Agree with nom. Also completely unencyclopedic, and some seem to be borderline slander, especially without sources. Looking at the article's talk page, it appears there's been numerous attempts and talk of cleaning it up, and yet it seems to have gotten nowhere or didn't last. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — To me, the entries on the page fall too neatly into two camps: 1) Familiar media nicknames (ie Teflon President, Tricky Dick) which should and probably are mentioned in the subjects' articles anyway, and 2) non-notable, often hateful attempts at defamation or humor. — Alcuin 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the fact that this article is basically a glorified list of insults masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. --Wafulz 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete garbage -- Szvest 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most of these insults are used by various persons. Mr Beale
  • Keep for the same reason as the previous voter. NTXweather 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because the insults are used doesn't make them encyclopedic. I could make up an insult and get my friends to say it, it would then be "used by various persons" - certainly not a reason to keep. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is just a list of silly nicknames that anyone could have made up, there is no need to keep any of them, and they add nothing to Wiki --Sopranosmob781 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonencyclopedic, difficult to source. Sandy 20:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth D. Welch

This article describes someone who, while I'm sure they are fascinating, does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Wesmills 08:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atbashg

Obscure hacker group, references given translate as: "E-Mails from the group that asked me to put the article online, issue of PC World journal [but no issue number given], confidential source (friend), employees of a remail account who evaluated log files". Unverifiable, probably hoax. Prodded, prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 09:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Appears to be unverifiable. Also (unless I'm missing something) the article isn't in English. Dlyons493 Talk 11:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, it's in German. I would have translated it if I believed it to be worth the effort. --Huon 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An impressively low zero Google results. Looks totally unverifiable. - makomk 18:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity, verifiability, sheer appropriateness? I can understand Deutsch/German, but de.wikipedia is for this, and I'm not sure the article is suitable for de.wikipedia at all anyway. --Draicone (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickless Mullard

Unsourced, produces not a single Google hit for "Dickless Mullard", "Micheal James Tomas Dullard", or several similar spellings ("Michael" instead of "Micheal"). Seems unverifiable, probably hoax. Delete --Huon 09:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, but made me laugh--Nobunaga24 09:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Jpeob 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Texas Imstruments TMS320. Shell babelfish 08:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Instruments TMS320C5000

Too short and uninformative, not even a stub. Might be worth merging with others into a single article about all TMS320 Goldie (tell me) 09:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remix Supporting Characters

It took me some time to discover what this list of people actually was. Well, they're all characters in some Indian tv-series.. I think the long list (with pictures and extensive descriptions and all) is not encyclopedic enough, it could just be a short list in Remix (STAR One).—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:FICT, which states "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." Also seems like original research. --Satori Son 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list like this with descriptions seems to be in line with the WP:FICT guideline, just needs some context at the beginning. However, most of the descriptions seem OR and unencyclopedic. JPD (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's also a similar discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remix Secondary Characters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da killah

Tosh. --Dangherous 10:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Tosh" is slang for "nonsense". -- Mikeblas 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a dictdef of slang. Appropriate for urbandictionary, but not for Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another AAVE dicdef, no possible expansion. --Kinu t/c 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete this garbage -- Szvest 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawn stomping

NN. Tosh. --Dangherous 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Tosh" is slang for "nonsense". -- Mikeblas 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AbsolutDan. *drew 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice (slang)

Tosh. --Dangherous 10:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a neologism to me - Delete accordingly BigHaz 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Puhlease! Rklawton 19:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Whpq 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. W.marsh 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-game

Tosh. I'm sure there's a redirect somewhere.--Dangherous 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, made-up neologism, without prejudice to a redirect if any target can be found. Sandstein 11:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Not made-up, gets 70,000 Google hits. Colleges are now making concerted efforts to reduce pre-gaming parties. [63] [64] SliceNYC 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Eusebeus 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki (if not done so already). The word is absolutely a real, and highly-used, word. If it was a made-up neologism, then every friend I have who drinks must have thought it up simultaneously. However, this article could never possibly be more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Kicking222. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hourglass figure

Tosh. --Dangherous 10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Tosh" is slang for "nonsense". -- Mikeblas 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm all for an entry on wikitionary as well, but this topic could be of some encyclopedic worth. For example, the hourglass' importance in the history of fashion, it's cultural importance (for instance, Marilyn Monroe was famous for her hourglass figure, and started a trend in the early 60s for having that figure). While the article does need a cleanup, that's no reason to delete. Thε Halo Θ 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources, dicdef (WP:RS, WP:WINAD). Sandstein 11:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sandstein. -- Mikeblas 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Female body shape. Dinosaur puppy 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Dinosaur puppy -- Whpq 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Female body shape. --Elonka 08:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sandstein. *drew 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Female body shape. --Angelbo 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Feroni

Notability/importance in question. Might warrant an article in a few years. Top google results are official website and myspace. ghits: [65] — NMChico24 11:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for now at least - can always be recreated when she achieves more. Dlyons493 Talk 14:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is google really the basis for cross-reference of notability? I should have taken note, but I am pretty certain that I've seen articles on people of less publicized repute (eg. National contest finalists, etc, etc, etc). Moreover, category cross-reference may play a factor in noteworthiness in this case. One of my original aims was to populate more cross-reference material. My submission on Talent Quest was intended and designed to document detail much like the entry for American Idol. That entry and its cross-reference categories leads to several biographical articles. Where is the distinction made in this case? What I can tell is that this article is based on a cross-reference infrastructure that does not yet exist. I really didn't see this point made in the "no vanity articles" guidelines. Is there a crisper policy guideline on "noteworthy" individuals? It would be useful before submitting further biographical articles. For instance, an individual who is an actor, and has been in several works... qualifies as "noteworthy" enough for article submission? The guidelines are gray, and I would like to better understand them. Thanks folks! - alvinc / 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Google is a tool, of course, and nothing more. One of the reasons I included my google results is so that other contributors can check my work. If others find information that I missed (especially through other resources of which I may be unaware), then by all means that information should be posted here. As a rule of thumb, though, if a person contributing to pop culture in any way is not well-represented in google, then chances are very few people have heard of that person. — NMChico24 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC for now -- Whpq 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MUSIC, I believe the satisfies the following criterion "Has won or placed in a major music competition." -- alvinc 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and also WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Eusebeus. I do believe, however, that the article fits within the guideliness of "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?" in WP:VAIN. May I get your view on it? Thanks! -- alvinc 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She seems notable, and WP:MUSIC should probably be reworked so that it doesn't exclude artists of considerable potential like this one. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please elaborate on why you feel she's notable. Do you have information that is not present in my google results (which, as I've already admitted, may be incomplete)? If so, that information would be a good addition to this discussion. Your discussion of changes you'd like to see in WP:MUSIC, however, should go on that article's talk page. — NMChico24 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Per WP:MUSIC, I believe the satisfies the following criterion "Has won or placed in a major music competition." -- alvinc 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete basing an artist's notability on potential is inherently POV. Until she accually accomplishes something, she is just another artist who doesnt belong here. Resolute 03:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Resolute for the clarification. I wish to submit, however, that per my cited note of WP:MUSIC quoting "Has won or placed in a major music competition.", the article qualifies for submission? -- alvinc 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A small section of The Syracuse New Times mentions her first album has "scored a hit in the European market", though she's played few shows even locally due to the demands of her day job as of 5/31/06. http://newtimes.rway.com/2006/053106/chatter.shtml If Talent Quest qualifies as a major music competition, then she satisfies the criterion of WP:MUSIC that alvinc mentions. TransUtopian 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just not quite notable enough yet. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author's Note

Regardless of the decision of this thread, I want to thank all contributors for their participation. Your input is crucial to helping me understand the guidelines better, thereby helping me avoid wasting time with inappropriate articles! -- alvinc 09:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Keep this appears to be a bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia (3rd nomination)

This page is not encyclopedic and contains a multitude of personal opinions rather than notable facts BookwormUK 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note:I just fixed this nomination. See the first discussion. Luna Santin 11:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous consensus (June 2005) was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic itself is undeniably notable; see also: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Catholicism, Homophobia, Supremacism, and so many other pages in Category:Discrimination. NPOV and OR don't strike me as valid causes for deletion, in this case; for a topic so obviously notable, it seems preferable to rewrite, discuss, and fix whatever problems we might find. As Wikipedians, we may not enjoy hatred, racism, or prejudice, but if our goal is present a neutral view, it doesn't seem appropriate to try and "erase" the existence of evil and bad things in the world. Readers deserve a fair, neutral article on Islamophobia and related topics. Luna Santin 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable... This article contains too much original research and is a free for all. If Islamophobia exists then so too should Hinduophobia, Jainophobia, Sikhophobia, etc. Racism is the catch all for this type of discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs) .
If you want an article on Hinduophobia, I respectfully suggest you find some sources and get writing. :) Every article on here was submitted by somebody; why not make some contributions, yourself, if you feel these other subject matters deserve coverage? Luna Santin 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Concensus to keep was absolutely clear on first nomination. Clearly a notable topic - if references are needed then they should be added. Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This deals with an important subject and as such should be kept. Deleting the article would not reduce the term's importance to modern times and questions of identity amid a possible Clash, however scary. Perhaps it needs a re-write to make it more in line with NPOV, however. Jpeob 11:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unencylcopedic? Obviously User:BookwormUK is either searching for any seemingly plausible excuse to submit this article for deletion or hasn't done any research at all relative to the topic of this article. Since this article's second nomination for deletion a lot of work has gone into it to ensure that verifiable reliable sources are cited regarding the subject matter found in this article. (→Netscott) 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In a rather twisted and "original research" way (see "Reasons for Islamophobia" section added by User:BookwormUK) this nominator herself supports the concept of "Islamophobia". (→Netscott) 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be a bad faith nomination by an editor trying to push a WP:POV per Netscott. The previous strong consensus to keep still stands. By all means let's improve the article but there are no valid grounds for deletion. Gwernol 14:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If it is not encyclopaedic than that is purely OR from the part of the nominator. If it contains "contains a multitude of personal opinions" than it can be fixed by an "infamous tag". We don't delete articles on those basis. An article containing 95 referenced sources and notes CANNOT be lacking NOTABLE FACTS. -- Szvest 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. I am not one to quickly make accusations of bad faith -- far from it -- but this appears to me to be incontrovertibly so. This edit, in which the nominator inserted previously non-existing text ("Islam is hated because its followers believe that they have the God given right to force their beliefs down other people's throats.") as part of an otherwise proper revision is strong evidence for the bad-faith nomination. Furthermore, the article is extensively sourced -- one of the most extensively sourced articles I've ever seen. That completely puts paid to the notion that the article is nothing but original research and unencyclopedic. This is, to me, a slam-dunk Speedy Keep. Powers T 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Islamophobia, is an important topic. Perhaps you could change the article instead of trying to delete it? --PEAR 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note The nominator has now been blocked for 3RR violations, disruption and POV pushing. It is clear this is a bad faith nomination and should be closed. Gwernol 16:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's menu in Canada

An unsourced and apparently unencyclopedic article. McDonald's have a website where this sort of information is kept up to date, so replicating it on WP seems pointless, nor do McDonald's need the free advertising. Similar articles for Taco Bell and McDonald's have been submitted to AFD (Taco Bell is open, McDonald's no consensus). The operative policy appear to be no primary sources, so I believe that this merits a delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom.Jpeob 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though maybe menu items unique to Canada deserve mention somewhere on some McDonald's Wiki page. SliceNYC 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a restaurant menu -- Whpq 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What about Mcdo's menu in Mars? There are Mcdos in more than 120 countries. I mean we won't need this much. One more point, are we in contact w/ marketing people of Mcdo in Canada so we can update this stuff everytime we get 2 for 1? -- Szvest 23:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable and unnecessary, but mention anything unique on the McDonald's article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by User:Neutrality. -- Koffieyahoo 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five Pillars of Online Success

Advertising. Weregerbil 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree. Jpeob 11:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic computer

Seems to be someone's own name for a glitch in Mario Kart 64. Whether the glitch is real or not, a quick search of sites related to the game turned up nothing with this name. I am not sure if this is even significant enough to merge. Andrew Levine 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge Copy/Paste I have played this game and its successor (Double Dash for Gamecube) There are indeed 2 karts that go much faster than the rest; whenever you enter a Cup, you will be competing with those 2 karts for points, and the 5 other karts are always very very much further behind. I believe this is his made up name for it, but it is an actual phenomenon. I'd suggest a merge with the Mario Kart article. Copy it, paste it somewhere as a minor note. (Ex: "Note: While playing this game, there will always be two karts that go faster than any of the others") For that is really the only valuable tidbit of info in this stubKupofather 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moral guardian

Some kind of original research mini-essay. Hard to tell if this is even verifiable. Andrew Levine 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Thε Halo Θ 12:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced - hard to know what it refers to. Seems unverifiable and OR Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not sure exactly what it is, but it is not a sourced, verifiable, encyclopedic article. Fan-1967 18:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Neutrality. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mallee Men

Seems to be a team in a very small, local rugby league. Not notable. Andrew Levine 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non notable sports team. Thε Halo Θ 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per above. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Lascelles

member of the extended royal family but apparently not in line to the crown. I also nominate his son Henry Lascelles and grandchild Maximilian Lascelles. Ohconfucius 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all as per nom. As per Ardric47 below Dlyons493 Talk 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. Fails WP:ROYAL. Thε Halo Θ 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that WP:ROYAL states notability as "no more than 8th in the line of succession"- Gerald was 7th at the time of his birth. Astrotrain 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Gerald Lascelles is not in line to the crown anymore because he died in 1998. However, he was 48th or so in line prior to his death. --Metropolitan90 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- notable as a grandson of King George V and a member of the British Royal Family. Note that at the time of his birth he was 7th in the line of succession. Astrotrain 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Astrotrain. Dinosaur puppy 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being distantly in the line of succession is not, in and of itself, sufficient to confer notability and the article makes no attempt to establish any further notability. Eusebeus 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • He isn't in the line of succession any more- as he is dead. And the article is a stub- it needs more information- not to be deleted. Astrotrain 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes I read the article, but the point is made in the abstract. Stub or no, there is no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ROYAL says that a notable member of a royal family is "spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses." The bolded words apply to Gerald Lascelles. Dinosaur puppy 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
See [66] Eusebeus 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Most people probably can't say that they are the grandson or cousin of a monarch. (George V and Elizabeth II) Dinosaur puppy 06:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that more than 1/2 of the people are female, most people can't say they have a penis. Are all males therefore notable? Puh-lease. Carlossuarez46 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That is completely irrelevant. Only a handful of people are grandchildren of monarchs. Ardric47 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Gerald, Delete Henry & Maximilian Gerald actually seemed to do something in his life other than marry and procreate (apparently Henry's only achievements and Max -- all of 14 years old -- hasn't even got that far); he was president of a notable racing association (other presidents of which have included Jackie Stewart, so it's a real thing rather than a bunch of guys (blokes) getting together to see who crashes at the Grand Prix). Carlossuarez46 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Gerald as clearly notable (grandson of a monarch) and merge Henry and Maximilian into Gerald's article. Ardric47 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Ardric47 and Astrotrain, this person met WP:ROYAL while alive. RFerreira 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCO Group

This page contains several unverifiable, inflamatory and potentially libelous statements. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this page seems designed specifically to advance the author's personal opinions about NCO Group's performance as an employer. The author may want to consider a blog or Wikinfo should they wish to put forward these personal objections towards NCO Group. All content past the first two paragraphs needs to be deleted or replaced with verifiable content. Scion2021 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I removed the inflammatory attacking information, much added by Beeray (talk • contribs), who's only edits are to this article. After that, seems like an NPOV, legitimate article. eaolson 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Despite the person claiming credit for my removal of the defamatory information, I believe that this article is now passable. However, this article doesn't have any true reason to persist. North Collections Organization is a little-known company which can be considered just as akin and on-level with Wikipedia as the local convenience store (ie, let's say a store called "Bob's Convenience Store."). In my opinion, it should remain, but it just as easily calls for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.79.198.2 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. With the removal of the unverifiable information, this article seems to now be in compliance with Wikipedia standards. The company itself, while not particularly notable or well-known, seems of sufficient size to warrant a listing alongside other outsourced customer relationship management companies with Wikipedia entries. Scion2021 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by User:SoothingR RN 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TeamXbox

This page has been deleted five times and even has another AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamXbox). It has also been speedied quite a few times [67]. Well, I guess it's time to clear the mess now. Let's gather consensus and settle this for once and for all.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: As you said it was deleted a few times (about 4, I think), I think you may consider wikipedia:speedy deletion in this case under the reason of Recreation of deleted material.--Wai Wai (☎) 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the deletions seem to be in 2005 or before. But now that it was bought by IGN, wouldn't that allow it to pass section 3 of WP:WEB? --Icep 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's page 1 ranked at Google for a "Xbox" search[68] and has 23 million hits for it.[69]. Highly notable website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.201.248 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 August 2006
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 09:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most visited and highly recognized Xbox site on the net. Havok (T/C/c) 11:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps it was not notable then, however TeamXbox is the most notable Xbox site on the net, perhaps more notable then Xbox.com when it comes to information. I am sure the Alexa ranking has to be up there, anyone have it? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ranked 3,142 on Alexa with over 20 million page views a day. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm withdrawing this nomination, you are all right in this matter. I wonder why I submitted this nomination in the first place... :/ —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Peephole 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RandyWang. --Ariadoss 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Uh, I didn't vote: the person above me forgot to sign their comment. I'm flattered, though. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Christopher Dundas

No vote yet. [see below] This is a re-listing, because Speedy delete request was turned down, as original vote was last year. Please see old Delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Christopher Dundas. Recent precedent has been to delete as Non-notable articles about failed election candidates, eg: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Gorn. Despite being an inclusionist, I will probably vote Delete, just because of precedent, but I would like to see what others say. (Please also note that this article is largely autobiographical, and thus breaks those rules too.)--Mais oui! 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Previous AfD was generally in favour of a delete. There were a few harmless-type votes and indeed it is pretty harmless but that's not sufficient reason to keep an article. And, surprisingly, User:Kappa voted to keep it. Dlyons493 Talk 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This ought to be a speediable candidate since there is clear consensus that being a failed candidate is not itself grounds for notability. Since many candidates are selected to run based on wider achievement, many are rightfully included. This does not appear to the case here. Eusebeus 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's nothing much beyond routine reporting on the Scotsman. Compare and contrast with Eric Milligan. Yes, that's a red link, but Eric is and was exceedingly well known and well reported beyond trivial mentions in the Scotsman (and even at the other end of the M8 in the Weegie Herald). Smacks of Libdem advertorial material I'm sorry to say. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments above. --Mais oui! 22:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Art and Craft Supply

no reference, too short to be useful, suspicious of notability --Wai Wai (☎) 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The company probably satisfies at least one of the WP:CORP criteria. It has stores in various parts of the U.S. --Metropolitan90 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, notable company with locations in many states, 75 years of history, and a claim at being the world's largest store of its kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. SliceNYC 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "david e. chawes"

Delete - I did confirm that this person won the award mentioned at [70], but the award appears to be NN (given it doesn't have an article), and thus the person is NN. Brian G (Talk) 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment — I see a significant number of Ghits for the Buton Award here: [71], and a few interesting hits for David himself here: [72]. The award itself seems fairly notable, if for no other reason that they've had some high-profile guest speakers (Tom Brokaw, George Will, etc.) I'm not sure, however, that this and the Ghits on David convey sufficient notability for inclusion, so I abstain. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' As I read this he won an award that goes to 10 student authors each year. Perhaps an interesting person but does not meet any of the WP:BIO criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - doesn't seem to be very notable, and WP:NOT comes into the picture as the article as the article seems to advertise him than document him. Verifiability is also an issue. --Draicone (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlogger

This is a non-notable website created last week. It has two users. One created the site. Garrepi 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB as non notable. Also seems to violate WP:VAIN. Thε Halo Θ 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely spam. Ashibaka tock 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Founded: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (August 7, 2006)"... not notable yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball, no WP:RS indicating that site meets WP:WEB. Possible WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuyu Yoshiaki

Article has been a stub for three-and-a-half years and has never asserted the importance of its subject. You'd think that if he was notable there'd be some expansion in that period of time. Google search in English is inconclusive and the first page of hits is largely Wikipedia mirrors. Search by Japanese name yields under 800 results. Andrew Levine 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pretty much everything I can see is wiki mirrors - so unverifiable and non-notable. And his own web page hardly inspires confidence. Dlyons493 Talk 16:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technertia

non-notable neogolism, it was previously on proposed deletion. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom with just 5 Ghits--Jusjih 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, no sources cited to support common use. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless some evidence of its purported use in academic circles surfaces. Shimeru 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep: if the nominator had focused on his notability instead of the hurt feelings of a cat abuser, there might have been more support for deletion. But in this particular discussion, Kinu's argument says much of what needs to be said. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shangwen Fang

Reason First, It doesn't seem that Fang is willingly to be in public domain (according to his statement in zh-wiki) and neither did he himself being publicized voluntarily - he is not a public figure at all. Fang's personal information was being disclosed to public by media illegally, and those personal information have nothing to do with the cat abuse. (As for the definition of public figure, please refer to the case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,351(1974). )

Second, is there anybody interested in Fang's life except for the cat incident? (If you did, you should have put these information into this article.) Cat abusing is only a little part of Fang's whole life, and will anybody include his early life, his work, and his studies with detailed description as his biography in Wiki? Are those biography important enough to make Fang an article?

Third, the article was filled with subjective comment, and I don't think that Wiki is a place for outrageous cat lovers to humiliate their dislike person. This place is supposed to be neutral, it's not a personal blog.

For the above mentioned reasons, this article should be removed. Fanoffang 13 August 2006

  • Moderate keep. Notability is iffy but appears to be sufficiently established. Subject's desire is irrelevant. (I gave a stronger keep vote at the Chinese Wikipedia AFD discussion -- because notability is stronger as to the Chinese-speaking community -- but here, relevance is less.) Not being an attorney in Taiwan, I can't comment on Taiwanese law, but I am sure that no American court would consider the amount of information in the article currently to be any form of invasion of privacy, as all of it is in the public record. Whether he's a "public figure" as a matter of law is not relevant; when there is no disclosure of material that would trigger an invasion of privacy claim, it doesn't matter how non-public the individual is; no invasion of property claim can lie under the disclosure, in particular, of a court record. --Nlu (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Opinion I am sorry to discourage you that none information regard to this case was from the court, actually, this case will never be brought to the court unless Taiwanese law change. Surely there's nothing to do with any "court record". Since the information was being disclosed to the public illegally through media, according to The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine, others' disclosure will be regarded as illegal as well. You may have to update your knowledge about the whole incident -- Fanoffang 13 August 2006
      • Police record is covered under the same doctrine. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply -- the fruit of the poisonous doctrine applies when illegal government conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, leads to the discovery of evidence. Even then, it only applies in a criminal case, not to an administrative or civil case. Perhaps you need to brush up on your American constitutional law before you start citing American cases and doctrines. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I am sorry to discourage you again that The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine is the practice of due process of law. It applies not only to criminal cases but all legal actions.

          In this case, medias disclosed the information illegally, and the editor claimed that he was just quoting what he has seen through media - since the tree (disclosure of personal information by media) was being poisoned, the fruit (the disclosure of personal information by editor) is poisoned, too, and the fruit shall not be the excuse for reliving. This also means that no infringer could be relieved just by alleging that his information is from others. Try to study some more and I guarantee that will be helpful. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006

          • Fine, as you wish. I trust that my law school alma mater taught me well enough. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Wow!! Then I highly suggest(with courtesy) that you will never let your dear professor in law school alma mater know that how you magically turn a case which will never go to the court to court record. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
  • keep His name and the university he graduated from are not illegal information, all of these are from public domain and can be referenced. Bobbybuilder 01:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Both Miss Qu and Paris Hilton's sex vedios are confer to your definition of disclosing - sex vedio is not illegal information, and these vedios could be retrieve from public domain and can be referenced.

    I may have to remind the readers that the article Shangwen Fang in ZH-wiki has been removed due to the reason of lack of importance. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006

  • Chu and Paris Hilton has court order to block distribution. Did Fang file for blocking of distributing his name? I also remind you that the article Shangwen Fang in Zh-wiki has been combined to the Neihu Cat Abuse incident due to the overlapping of content and not by the privacy concern or lack of importance. Bobbybuilder 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this content is here illegally, Wikimedia Foundation should be conacted directly, as they have more experience in handling these matters than us regular editors. --GunnarRene 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are thousands of articles appear every day and how could we expect those few voluntary editors to know all kinds of regulations?

    I am sorry to discourage the upper stairs that both Qu and Hilton filed no order to block the distribution of the video. Illegality won't become legality whether the subject claims his right or not. Besides, the deletion process of the article Shangwen Fang in Zh-wiki rises because of the lack of importance, and this has been acknowledged by most voters. Article of Shangwen Fang no longer exists in ZH-wiki now and the article of "Incidence" is apparently not the biography of Fang. Therefore, I'm afraid that you are also the one needs to renew your knowledge toward the whole incident. Well, maybe not just the incident, but some common sense such as Qu and Hilton. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006

  • Comment It's very misleading for you to say that the information has been removed from the Chinese Wikipedia. It's been merged into the article on the incident itself. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep due to the lack of any cited violation of inclusion policy or guideline here. The information is verifiable, is not original research, and is written in a neutral point of view; even if it wasn't, that's grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Further, the article is not making slanderous or defamatory comments about this individual, and it seems to adhere to biography standards for living people. If you feel there's a bigger legal issue involved, contact the Wikimedia foundation directly; AfD is NOT the place for it, as Wikipedia editors are not bound, per se, to enforce either Taiwanese or American law in this regard, except where indirectly noted (i.e., in the case of copyright violations). NOTE: no prejudice to renomination based on a real guideline/policy, i.e., WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should be noted that Fanoffang's edits have themselves violated a policy -- no legal threats. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Notorious subject. Tafinucane 08:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just curious: legal threat to whom? -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
      • Comment Let us know what's your problem here. We have clearified that there's nothing illegal here, and if you want to use legal threats here then go ahead. Bobbybuilder 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the this article with the article about the incident itself. The incident and resulting changes to law (or proposed changes) are notable. The person is not notable other than by his/her association with this one and only incident.... unless more than one or two Wikipedia articles mention this guy, he's really just a nobody. Rklawton 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a totally nn, unencyclopedic entry. --DrL 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no need to set an article for a nobody.

--flyinggenie 01:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment the contribution above consists of flyinggenie's only contribution to Wikipedia. Rklawton 14:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Userfy —Mets501 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moogle Mafia

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Unsourced fancruft. Judging by Google, seems to be non-notable. Can't find any pages not created by Moogle Mafia members themselves. eaolson 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Userfy per discussion below --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nydas 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete gaming clans under A7/group. This particular bunch gets all of 40 unique Google hits, most of which are forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Moogle delete -- Szvest 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whack per nom, gaming clans usually aren't notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, kupo! Thatdog 05:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn group.--Andeh 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT- - http://www.terraodyssey.com/~moogle/moogle_mafia_alliance.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.103.2 (talk • contribs)
  • After filling in for kupofather (the true leader of the Moogle Mafia)on Zelderex, I can only say that the sheer number of messages I recieved when I took over asking where Kupofather was, only gives more credit to the fact that this clan is one of a kind and truely deserving. Bammin 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. As one of the biggest online gaming community, this clan deserves its space.--Headsman 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Headsman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep it. -- Its a community big enough for notability. Neferupitou 09:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Neferupitou (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep it. -- They deserve the respect and the credibility to have a piece of Wikipedia dedicated to them and their accomplishments as an online gaming community. --PestControl123 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: PestControl123 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Userfy. -- As its leader i know more about this clan than pretty much anyone else. If you have any questions about it, please direct them to me. I ran the same google search as you and came up with 40 seperate websites that we are either on or that are talking about us. Of these 40 websites, only about HALF are forums (which makes sense... considering our name comes up more in discussions rather than... picture blogs or file shares i guess... <_<). Also keep in mind that we go by many different names, as some sites have character limits of 9-10 characters which does not allow us to use the full name. In such cases, we use the name "Kupo Clan" (which if you'd like i could add as an "also known as" under Moogle Mafia...) If you actually go to any of the games that we are in (A partial list was provided on the wiki itself) You would see that we do have as many members as we boast. Currently in zelderex we have 150 members in our main branch and roughly 35 in our side branch. In Urban Rivals, we have either 105 or 106 members. In xtratic war, there was a recent reset which left most of us stranded... we previously had 59 members but have since evaporated down to 17. In kingdom of loathing, we at one time had 60 members but i have not played in a long time and at last count i believe we have roughly 30. In outwar, we had just under 70 members but the admins banned half the clan for unknown reasons (They arent too talkative over there) so we're down to 20ish members with my account as leader suspended... On our forums we have a little over 300 members, but our forums are relatively new, as im sure you saw in the google search of our name, the first link "Xmbhost" was our original forums, we had roughly 500 members signed, and then the host crashed on us and we had to relocate... we lost everything, including the majority of our member email lists, and unable to contact the lost members to tell them what happened we had to just start over again, slowly putting the pieces of our clan back together again. I apoligize for the history lesson and the long post... if its too long, please let me know. I will check back here sometime tomorrow to see whats new. (BTW this is my first wiki post ever, so ive really got no clue what i am doing... i hope this is how you sign it and talk...) Oh yeah, Quote: Can't find any pages not created by Moogle Mafia members themselves To date, we have made 3 pages for us, by us. Our first clan forums (xmbhost.com/MoogleMafia), our clan website (www.terraodyssey.com/~moogle) and our current clan forums (www.gamingcomm.com/mafia). Just fyi. Note: for the time being i suppose you could call this a single purpose account (since i didnt make one before this, i usually just did stuff anonymously, but anyways, now that ive got the account i suppose ill actually tag my name to changes ;P Kupofather 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Kupofather (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • After Doing some research And also after finding this message in my inbox, sent by a concerned moogle: Clan Mass-Message: everyone needs to go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moogle_Mafia#.5B.5BMoogle_Mafia.5D.5D and vote that we keep the page. I would like to request that any moogles that come here DO NOT create an account for the sole purpose of voting to keep this on, as wikipedia really doesnt need the extra dud accounts, and it isnt the number that matters anyways, but rather the quality of the arguement. If you'd really like to be a part of it anyways, just sign your name after the Moogles against deletion header, and leave it at that (unless you feel you have something valuable to add...) Kupofather 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Moogles Against Deletion Kupofather, Brendamus, Neferupitou, Headsman, Bammin, PestControl123, zombiez, GeneralZap
  • Comment: Notability guidelines have their foundation in a more important Wikipedia policy: verifiability. All articles here must contain information that's properly cited from reliable sources. If there is no metion of said topic in any reliable source, then Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Considering the above, if a reliable source (such as a well-known magazine) has discussed the clan, feel free to add it to the article and mention it here. You can follow any of the above blue links for the applicable guideline/policy. Any further discussion here should be based not on the number of people who support or oppose deletion, but on policy. I think we can safely assume that every member of Moogle would oppose the deletion, so there's no need for all of them to sign. If anyone has thoughts on how the article passes or fails Wikipedia policy or guidelines, then such discussion is welcome here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah! I understand what you are saying now... Hmmm... *searches memory* The newsletter for one of the games we are very big on had an article on us... but im pretty sure you wouldnt count that... umm.... numerous forum discussion on us... but again, in the games we play... Well, i suppose that we probably dont fulfil your guidelines then... We've never had a real magazine (like one that is on the market) do a story on us so if you're looking for... credentials i guess... we are lacking. So do you just kill the whole article? Like trash it. or is it archived for later when we get a magazine article ;P Just wondering... Also, offtopic, but what is cruft? Kupofather 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, forums are generally not considered reliable secondary sources. One big reason this article is not notable is that it doesn't say why your clan is important from the point of view outside your clan. As for "cruft," see Wikipedia:Fancruft. eaolson 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: If an article is deleted, it is removed from general display. I guess you could say it gets "archived" - at that point only admins and 'crats can retrieve the article, so yes down the road someone could request undeletion at deletion review if there becomes sufficient reason for the article to exist.
    There's an alternative to having the article disappear, however - if you plan on remaining at Wikipedia and editing other articles (and we hope you do!), you can request that the article be "userfied" - whereas the entire article is moved or copied under your username, and someone looking at you as an editor can see the information. Every contributing editor has the right to a (reasonable) user page and subpages where they can talk a bit about themselves and their interests (again within reason), of which retention standard are a bit more lax (assuming you do remain here and contribute to other articles). If you are interested in this option, you can change your vote opinion above to "userfy" --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Kupofather, the self-declared leader of the clan, who after doing research and asking questions has determined that it probably doesn't have what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Rather than deleting the page, userfy seems better as the information would still be online and accessible to all on that userpage. TransUtopian 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. After really going through and looking at the other articles up for deletion and some of the ones that are fine, i can see the differences and this one really doesnt cut it yet. Maybe in the future (after i move to the real world and take over the southern half of america... i mean <_< You heard nothing ;P) Perhaps I could officially create something for this. But for now, that seems to be the best option. Also wondering, is there a tutorial for the proper etiquette for talk discussions like this? I notice that you write yours underneath mine, (rather than as a new bullet) but i dont know how to do that. If theres a FAQ or something like that that addresses this id thank you very much for redirecting me there. Thank you again for clarifying and being patient with me even though im still a noob with this wikipedia stuff. Kupofather 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Kupofather - thank you for your civil comments and discussion here. I've changed my opinion to "userfy" as well. I'll follow-up on your talk page with the info you requested as not to clutter up this AfD more. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't this AfD be closed? How do I flag down an admin for a non-emergency but should be done at some time? TransUtopian 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Wars

Non-notable, original parody/fan-fiction/something. Andrew Levine 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a fanfic... or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Only one link on Google, and content lifted straight from [73]. --dtony 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Supernova

See Rocket Wars above. Non-notable, original sci-fi saga or parody. Andrew Levine 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malacalypse the setian

Hard to tell what this is. Something to do with Dischordianism but it seems like original work. Andrew Levine 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is so poorly written and incomplete that it is not even clear what it is about. --dtony 19:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Regular delete then. No way to tell what it's supposed to be. Little or no context. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This article is comprehensible and is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. While it's canon that there are actually more types of Discordianism than practicing Discordians, I think the essentially unpublished views of a one-man Episkoposary count as Original Research at the very least. They just deleted the standalone entry on Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and that group actually has a known presence outside its own pineal gland. It doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Also, if we start making pages for every saint and visionary recognized by every Discordian pope around, we're going to have to end up making en.disc.wikipedia.org just to handle the flow of traffic. --Parcequilfaut 07:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) , Pope the Empress, Commander of the DoomBringer and Recommender of Deletion

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerne

Dictionary Def. Transwiki to wiktionary. Cassavau 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Wiktionary will not accept this. It is obviously a copyright violation of a printed dictionary. Wiktionary does not accept copyright violations. Uncle G 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, it should be deleted --Cassavau 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. JPD (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio dicdef. --Satori Son 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nimmons, Arkansas

A "town" of 100 inhabitants is not notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. PatGallacher 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Precedent is that all verifiable settlements are kept. Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per above. —dima /sb.tk/ 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per precedent. --dtony 19:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a precedent to keep towns, villages, etc as long as they're verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent. SliceNYC 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. --Kinu t/c 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dlyons493. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above
  • strong keep per precedent. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wright violin

Not notable amateur violin manufacturer, some of whom's violins, "weren't very good." Not verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable due to lack of sources. --Metropolitan90 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good, verifiable sources are provided. I couldn't find relevant hits doing the obvious searches in Google Web or Google Books. Interesting short article but not acceptable without published sources. I have to wonder whether perchance all four of these violins are in Celloboi93's collection. The text reads as a good faith effort to publish information about an otherwise-poorly-known luthier, not like an attempt to promote items for sale or to increase the value of a private collection, but, alas, seems to be original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast spoken language

Confusing and largely speculative. Probably OR, since Google gives barely 100 results for the phrase. Soo 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom w/no WP:V/WP:RS. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR, WP:POV (I don't consider half of the languages on that list "fast spoken"). --Kinu t/c 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR, WP:POV. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Kinu. -- Szvest 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And that's the news!

Non-notable, unsourced, phrase is so generic that google searches are inconclusive. Possible candidate for redirect, but I don't know where to. Jdcooper 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article serves no purpose whatsoever. Feeeshboy 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete if an appropriate article can be found; else just Delete. Valrith 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a stub of an article that cannot grow, and has no sources. -- Whpq 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — No I think its a good idea. We could also have, "and now for the weather" "and here's Jill with sport" and... not. Delete :) - Glen 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a repository for every single phrase used everywhere. --Kinu t/c 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. and that's all. WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 08:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raw food recipes

The introductory text is massively POV, and the presentation of recipes is inconsistent with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, paragraph 4. John254 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - not a cookbook -- Whpq 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as it stands it reads like an article lifted from a women's magazine. Complete with the genre's vague claims about 'enhanced metabolism', and nonsensical remarks about 'living enzymes' Malcolm Farmer 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT. :) Dlohcierekim 08:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver-Seattle

I've lived in Pierce County, Washington my entire life, and have never heard my area referred to as "Seattle-Vancouver". Wouldn't this classification exist for any pair of cities? What restrictions would there be on geographic distance? Seattle-Portland? Seattle-Spokane? Seattle-San Francisco? Seattle-Tokyo? If this refers to some census-related determination, perhaps it should continue to exist, but the article makes no reference to any such designation. Travisl 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(Note for future: if this page should continue to exist, add redirect from Seattle-Vancouver Travisl 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As far as I can telll no one actually uses the term. Artw 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone de-prodded it stating that it's a real place, but provided no references. I've lived in Seattle for 15 years, and can't say that I've heard the area referred to as a single entity (beyond "Pacific Northwest"). The driving distance between the cities is about 120 miles, which is much further than other city pairs (like Minneapolis-Saint Paul, or Dallas-Fort Worth). I don't know of any shared infrastructure (like Hartford-Springfield Airport). -- Mikeblas 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bizarre, there are several small regions with distinctive identities within this. The Tulip farms are not the Lummi Indian reservation are not Bellingham.
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy D -- Szvest 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a term used north of the border, either. Agent 86 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cascadia. hateless 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Seattle-Tacoma" would be a legitimate redirect to Federal Way, WashingtonSeaTac, Washington or Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but this is not a term that is in common use. Yamaguchi先生 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairlawn, Florida

Pretty much a hoax article. There is no bona fide "neighborhood" named Fairlawn, and there is no such mythic "white population" ensconced in the heart of Cuban Miami (which is exactly what the area in question is). A check of the internet and soucres will convince you of the same. Courtney Akins 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete.Courtney Akins 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears on the national map, but unlike Flagami it is not acknowledged by the city, so it doesn't pass minimal significance. Gazpacho 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't doubt the existence of the name, but that's not quite enough. Gazpacho 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is acknowledged by the city [74] on the http://miamidade.gov/wps/portal - On June 10th, residents of West Miami, Fairlawn and Flagami neighborhoods celebrated the Grand Re-Opening of the Fairlawn Branch Library. On hand were Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez.... Who are we to doubt that it is a census designated place? --Tagishsimon (talk)
Comment Interestingly, the link has no reference to Fairlawn. I will ask a couple of Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida editors to look at this. :) Dlohcierekim 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The neighborhood does exist. The opening of the new location of the Fairlawn Branch of the Miami-Dade Libary is announced here. Here is a FEMA announcement of a grant for stormwater drainage improvements in the Fairlawn neighborhood of Miami, and here is a City of Miami announcement of groundbreaking for the Fairlawn Storm Sewer Improvement Project (scroll down to Mayor Manny Diaz and City Commissioners Hold a Groundbreaking Ceremony and Announce Citywide Flood Mitigation Projects). There is a Fairlawn Elementary School, and while a school name doesn't prove the existance of the neighborhood, the attendance boundaries for Fairlawn Elementary correspond to other indications of the neighborhood, and have not been changed since 1971. I have no opinion at this time as to whether this neighborhood is notable enough for an article in WP, but it does exist, is acknowledged by the city and is not a hoax. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable neighborhood (isn't it a cemetary?). Bastique▼parler voir 13:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks Dan and Bastique. :) Dlohcierekim 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that my own neighborhood, Palm Aire Village, has its own article. This is only by virtue of being a census designated place during the 2000 Census. It has since incorporated into Fort Lauderdale, and will unlikely ever be notable enough to merit an article. Bastique▼parler voir 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It doesn't look like a hoax to me. I can find it with Mapquest and Google Earth. The school appears real. I haven't been able to verify the demographic assertion though, so will add a {{fact}} tag to that statement. The school demographics do support that Fairlawn has a large white population - it's just not sufficient to support the assertion in the article. However, it doesn't show up as a valid name in a USPS Zip code search nor does it show up as a valid place name using the US Census site search. I did find it in one gazeteer: [75]. I'd keep it for now to see if the article can be expanded with better sources and a better assertion of notability - but this is a close call for me... Brian 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Comment. There is a Fairlawn, Florida that is a Populated Community Place in Broward County[76], not in Miami-Dade County. It may be difficult to say much about that Fairlawn, as well. I see that the web link about the Fairlawn branch library states that the library's clientele consists of newly arrived Hispanic immigrants and older residents who have lived in the West Miami, Fairlawn and Flagami areas for many years. This is consistent with the claim that Fairlawn has a large White (non-Hispanic) population, but could never be used as a source for that statement. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the neighborhood is verifiable, which it appears to be, I don't see how notability really plays into this. It is my understanding we keep all articles on real towns, villages, neighborhoods, etc. RFerreira 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not Found" - Error404 Records Compliation

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns an apparently non-notable CD, and is comprised primarily of a track listing. John254 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - but if it can be shown that a sufficient number of the contributing acts are notable, I'll change. Because it's not properly formatted, I can't workout which is the artist and which is the song title on many occasions, making it hard to properly ascertain the position.....Ac@osr 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have tabulated playlist and replace commercial link with CD's Allmusic listing. :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can show notability of artists. :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Douglasr007 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy on the request of anyone who intends to work on it, as always. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special relativity - simple explanation

See also Quantum Mechanics - simplified (AfD discussion), A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity (AfD discussion), Special relativity for beginners (AfD discussion), and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.

Article was marked for prod, but contested. Delete as Introduction to special relativity already exists. Please read discussion here. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, here are my (the creator of the article) comments:

    The article has been created as a draft to replace (after polishing it a bit) the current article introduction to special relativity.

    Here are my objections against the current so called "introduction to special relativity". I have also expressed them in the introduction to special relativity article discussion page.

    • it is not a non-technical introduction, but it is linked from the special relativity article as a non-technical introduction
    • it doesn't focus on the theory itself, but on the Minkowski space
    • it uses too much calculations inadequate to the simlicity of the principles
    • it goes into too much detail unnecessary for explanation of the fundamental ideas of the theory
    • it doesn't provide an overview of the most important outcomes - for people not interested in calculation of them
    • it uses special terminology (from the SR area) when not necessary in places where explaining other terms
    • as a result of all the above, it doesn't serve it's purpose, which I believe is to provide a simple overview and explanation of the theory for newcomers with a basic knowledge of mathematics - who are not used to describe things by mathematical formulas; people who will probably open the article are those, who do not understand the special relativity but the current article puts them in the same (if not worse) position--Herr.Schultze 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to subpage of author's userpage until it's ready. Deletion would not be productive. Soo 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's essentially a POV fork -- Whpq 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Soo. Nickieee 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, otherwise move per Soo. As I have noted on talk:Introduction to special relativity:
    • This article is based on a very early version of the special relativity article.
    • It contains many factual errors.
    • It is poorly organized and focused excessively on E=mc².
    • It fails to deal with the underlying postulates of special relativity
    • It fails to discuss many of the important result/predictions of special relativity, or does so only breifly and incoherently.
    While I do agree that Introduction to special relativity is in need of a rewrite, this is an awful basis for it. I once again ask Herr.Schultze to discard this article as the useless piece of ancient (Wikipedia) history that it is, and start over from scratch. --EMS | Talk 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Soo. I have a couple of subpages where I draft new articles. :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's up with the "move" vote? The original author is quite capable of making a private copy if they wish, there is no point to suggesting a "move" (which I thus interpret as equivalent to "delete"). linas 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blowing Your Cover

This article is about a training course that doesn't seem particularly notable and only seems to exist for advertising purposes.-- RicDod 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable advert Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, possible WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious non-notable advert.Jonnymoblin 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as all above. I have removed the image as being spam, vanity, or copyvio. One whole Google hit. :) Dlohcierekim 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Championship Wresting

No assertion of notability Sasaki 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cannot find where or how this is notable. Perhaps someone on that side of The Pond could illuminate the matter. :) Dlohcierekim 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamlinux

no assertion of notability and is clearly and advert for a flavour of Linux. Doesn't appear notable per WP:WEB Spartaz 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB does not apply, since it is software not a website. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As nom --Spartaz 18:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and improve. I already did some work, will try to do more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. WP:WEB is not the appropriate criterion to invoke. The article describes an operating system. Moreover, seemingly one of few distros to exclusively use XFCE as their desktop environment, and possibly the foremost in terms of implementing features of OS X. The article does, however, need much more detail, especially on what elements were taken from each of the parent distros (Kanotix, Elive, Morphix, Debian). I also don't find it sounds like an advert, although I would suggest avoiding "boast", and quotes should be in quotation marks. We have an editor volunteering to work on this, so all seems good. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The article is still a stub. Not the most popular distro, but still a distro that with contributions can be improved to great quality. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. WP:WEB can't apply here, as the article is describing a piece of software, and I believe that the top 100 operating systems based on Linux should be written about. T. Moitie [talk] 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep redirect - misspelling - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biekbala Mujik

Deprodder asks, "how could maori reggae not be notable?" WP:MUSIC has a few possible answers. Excuse me - I have got a few bridges to sell. :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as they appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Google results are no help.--Kchase T 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Blekbala Mujik, I suppose, though it's not a very likely misspelling. Call it a "weak redirect", if you want. The groups seems to be notable.--Kchase T 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, early closure. Only major contributor agrees that it should be deleted. —Mets501 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobobo-bobo-bobo episode/chapter Spoilers

This looks like fancruft. —Mets501 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kanpyofan 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)This page should not be deleted, it exists to provide detailed summaries of parts of this series, for people who have missed an episode or simply wish to know what happens in the many manga chapters taking place after the animated series cancellation.Kanpyofan 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article says: Whereas the respective pages for the episodes and chapters of the series give very brief summaries, this page exists to give highly detailed summaries of them. That being said, it's either a) fancruft and indiscriminate information, or b) nothing that can't be included in any individual episode articles that might exist, since that's why the spoiler tags exist. --Kinu t/c 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. TheFarix (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't a very similar article AfDed recently, but under a different name? Because I'm sure I've seen this article recently. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kanpyofan 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)I've changed my mind, I agree that creating this page was unneccesary, thank you Kinu.Kanpyofan 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chair Diving

"Chair diving is a new form of water sport created by Barrett Routon, Brandon Smart, Chris, Andrew Boothe, and Candice the lifeguard..." Obviously WP:OR, no sources, should be speediable but A7 would be a stretch. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Violates the prime directive essay WP:NFT. And per nom.--Kchase T 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Painfully in violation of WP:NFT. Chris? Candice the lifeguard? C'mon. --dtony 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at the pool one day, unverifiable, likely vanity. --Kinu t/c 23:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, If it's so new, it will have to wait on notability. Perhaps after further testing. :) Dlohcierekim 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. I originally speedied it, but apparently it doesn't meet the criteria - so here we are, a dozen of Wikipedians jumping through hoops in order to delete a single dimwit article. Oh, well... GregorB 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of obese cartoon characters

We don't know the weights or heights of most of these characters, and even if we did, WP:NOR forbids us from calculating their BMI. Besides, Porky Pig might be a bit chubby for a man, but he's a cartoon pig; we would need third-party reliable sources to say he's obese. Prod'ed & removed, see talk page. Original research; POV; unencyclopedic. Mr Stephen 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced original research -- Whpq 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced, original research, listcruft. And there's a difference between being clinically obese and just being large. --Kinu t/c 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a bit too much of an uncoursced, [[WP:|original research]], piece of cartooncruft and listcruft.-- danntm T C 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gazpacho 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Balderdash, especially the POV hippopotamus-bashing! Keresaspa 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sure it's unsourced. But look at them! --Hazelfo 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Pretty darn subjective inclusion criteria. Not maintainable. That's all, folks. :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Yale Society of Orpheus & Bacchus

Delete. This is a non-notable student theatre group. The article is essentially a vanity article for that group. The result of the deletion discussion for similar groups has been delete. For example, see here. See also the WP:MUS notability criteria for musical groups. Marc Shepherd 19:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not even the most notable a capella group in their own school. Fan-1967 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given above. --Ssilvers 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't see where they meet WP:MUS. :) Dlohcierekim 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Yale's a cappella community is rather unique; the first collegiate a cappella group in the U.S. (The Whiffenpoofs) was founded there almost a century ago, and it has spawned around 15 other a cappella groups. As far as I know, no other college can boast (or complain) of such an array of vocalists. It should be noted as well that, clamoring for attention, just about all of these groups have rather unnotable "advertisements" up on Wikipedia briefing cyberspace on their accomplishments: Redhot & Blue, The Baker's Dozen, The Spizzwinks(?), Shades, Yale Alley Cats, The Duke's Men of Yale etc. Put a message on my talk page if you want the full list. It seems rather unjust to delete this particular article and leave all of the other ones up. I certainly agree that the creators, editors, etc. of the article in question have flagrantly violated the NPOV policy and that the article should definitely be pared down and perhaps deleted in the end anyway, but if that is so, the other a cappella advertisements need to get some of the same scrutiny and attention. Perhaps a single page could be devoted to the Yale's a cappella history; the mob of singers over the years has generated a number of notable musicians, composers, actors, etc. (some of whom have actually come from the Society of Orpheus and Bacchus). And such a page might be of some interest; National Public Radio did a feature on Yale's a cappella scene within the last few years or so because of its unusual vibrancy. Mgummess 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Final Fantasy characters

The article is completely redundant. It doesn't contain any information that isn't available in other Final Fantasy character lists, and doesn't make it much easier to access. Any improvement would be redundant. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or turn into disambig At this point, it allows for a quick overview of all the characters in all of the Final Fantasy games, useful if you want to see what characters were in one game but not another. I would support a disambiguation page with links to each of the lists, but removing the whole list only to replace it with a "this page has been deleted" page wouldn't be very helpful. Captainktainer * Talk 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. Try as I might, I cannot see how this page could be used to see which characters were in one game and not another; the lists for each game are formatted differently, for one thing. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per. Captainktainer. Havok (T/C/c) 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Captaintainer, good point about making disambig page to help people find a specific list. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Peephole 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. PresN 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is too broad to allow for useful commentary, and too spotty for it to be useful for navigation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Captainktainer. --Ariadoss 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Turn into a disambiguation page for the character lists of each individual title
    Delete — Turn it into a redirect to Category:Final Fantasy characters instead. It's just way too broad to be of use to anyone, and is pretty much redundant of the individual titles' character list pages. I can't see what it can do in this capacity that wouldn't be served as well, or better, by turning it into a disambiguation page for the focused articles. Ryu Kaze 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) redirect to the category page instead. Ryu Kaze 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A disambigutation page is unnecessary. It is unlikely anyone would type in 'List of Final Fantasy characters'. Simply delete the page and change all links to this page to the correct category.
    • Ah, good idea. Ryu Kaze 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Turn into a disambiguation page per above. — Deckiller 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    STRONG DELETE and provide links to the category of "final fantasy characters" instead. — Deckiller 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant, and no one in their right mind would punch in "List of Final Fantasy characters" into that search bar. As an alternative, feel free to dump this on my Wiki. Just remember, if you're the dumper, it needs to be de-Wikipediafied, summons need to be removed, and I'd like the names arranged nicely in alphabetical order. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Final Fantasy locations have followed similar steps (the link in the template goes to the category, while List of Final Fantasy locations is actually a list for one game) --TheEmulatorGuy 04:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait...you are the nom o.O — Deckiller 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I just felt like saying that. I wanted to make an extra point without editing the original message. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepUseful per Captainktainer . :) Dlohcierekim 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: As the list only lists characters and does not describe them, I don't see the problem with maintaining it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, it is useful as a sort of DAB and as a list of lists. Though I wouldn't mind it being cleaned up significantly. --SevereTireDamage 11:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless for comparitive purposes since the lists are presented sequentially and formatted differently; useless for disambiguation purposes since the title is not one anyone will type in, and anyone who knows enough to search for "List of Final Fantasy characters" is hardly going to need a special page to hint that the list of Final Fantasy VII characters might be located at List of Final Fantasy VII characters. I don't see what this article does at all, and I don't see how deleting it will remove any information from the encyclopedia: so seriously, what's the point of keeping it? It's just one more page that will need updating as new titles appear. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I normally support the inclusion of Final Fantasy material, but the character lists can be handled in each game's main article, and highly important characters have their own articles anyways. There is no need to have a redundant list. --Targetter (Lock On) 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I will note that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus so far. --Targetter (Lock On) 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but only use for documenting the characters in Final Fantasy I as per List of Final Fantasy II characters, List of Final Fantasy III characters et al. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article is not deleted, I would be happy to use it for this. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Hockeycruft. Unencyclopedic, a complete mess, and essentially abandoned. We don't have separate articles on the Miami Dolphins' perfect 1972 season or the Chicago Bulls' 72-win season, why should a Cinderella playoff run that fell short of it's championship get one? It's been proposed to be merged with 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs, but that article goes into more detail about the run than this article does, and is already too long as it is. Moving to delete this article. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete If the Oilers' run deserves a mention, then every other team to make it would have similar articles. Also, the entire article is just a list of game results and whatnot. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same concerns expressed by the nom. If there is a need to split the playoff article because of size or complexity, I already proposed dividing it by Conference lines on the talk page for 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Though I have to say that something like the 72 Dolphins team is notable enough for a separate article. A lot of teams have made it to the 7th game of the Stanley Cup finals unexpectedly, however. Three in the past three years, as a matter of fact. Resolute 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything relevant and delete per nom. BoojiBoy 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything relevant and delete. It breaks my heart as an Oiler fan to say it, but this article should just be moved in with other articles about the '06 playoffs, the Oilers, and the '05-'06 season. It was an amazing event in Edmonton culture, but that info should be in articles that talk about that culture. NDP Johnny 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge -- Whpq 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything relevant is already in the main article or in Edmonton Oilers. Powers T 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per arguments above. ccwaters 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Mergeanything usefull and discard the dross. :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- If there is an article for this playoff run, there needs to be an article on every intriguing playoff run... and that's something we certainly don't need. --Skudrafan1 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - For all the reasons already listed. --Djsasso 00:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I think categories for champions = listcruft, let alone also rans. RGTraynor 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Masterhatch 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirin Guild

Contested speedy delete - asserting notability (see talk page). Bringing to AfD for consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's a stub with no opportunity for the original author to establish notability. At least give it a chance. I should also mention that you might have a hard time finding Shirin Guild, as it isn't a large volume fashion brand, but rather exclusive boutique. -- Whpq 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Certainly some notability established on talk page, though it should be put in the article. Giving it a chance. I'm removing speedy tag too, since it doesn't apply. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a sub-stub now but that doesn't mean it won't be expanded upon in the future. 60,600 uniques in Google.[77] With that kind of popularity, I'm surprised this didn't have an article already. Czj 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed not about a person or a "boutique", but about a fashion label, established for 14 years in London, UK and on sale and worn in Europe and the US. It is widely mentioned in the press and in several books, as well as on permanent exhibition in several museums, such as Smithsonian and Victoria and Albert Museum, etc. The style is renowned and acclaimed in the same context as that of, e.g., Issey Miyake and Yohji Yamamoto. There is a bibliography ready for posting too, I am starting this STUB like any stub gets started. I fail to see any basis for deletion at all. Given the substantiality, as, e.g., reflected in 60 000 Google entries as well as noumerous academic references to the style created, I perceive any call for deletion overzealous and farfetched! Pantherarosa 23:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence - PNMsoft BPM Workflow

Delete - this article on a non-notable organization reads like an advertisement and fails the WP:CORP criteria. It appears to be WP:VANITY. The creator improperly removed a db-copyvio a few days ago. JonHarder 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not free ad space. Do not see how this meets WP:CORP. Web page's alexa score is 1,854,226. :) Dlohcierekim 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sans email fixe

Nonsense, 1st hand research Cvalda 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "pensée d'un jour de grosse chaleur" can be loosely (very, very loosely) translated as something thought up in school. -- Fan-1967 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G1 or A1, no context for expansion, patent nonsense. --Kinu t/c 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I say patent nonsense not because it's not in English, but because even in French, it's nonsense. --Kinu t/c 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baggårdsbryggeriet

Delete no assertion of compliance with WP:CORP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I believe the first sentence of the microbrewery article says it all: A microbrewery, or craft brewery, is a term used to describe a small commercial brewery. Srose (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is considerable interest in microbreweries, even if (perhaps because) they aren't giant corporations. The company is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I will withdraw this nomination if you're able to dig up considerable interest in this one. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Personally I'm unable to find any interest... Google returns mainly commercial directories, promotional sites and blogs. Srose (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a general rule breweries meet WP:CORP as the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself through their entries into beer festivals and what not. The article already links to one such independent source. Catchpole 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • RateBeer.com is a commercial directory, not a non-trivial published work. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And that is a matter of opinion. Catchpole 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't find any non-trival published works even in Danish (although apparently one of the bottles has a "super-cool" design) Yomanganitalk 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable company per nom. --Eivindt@c 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps creator can recreate if something earthshaking can be found. :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornographic cartoons

Very serious spam magnet (literally 100s of external links added by anons), subject material belongs in article Cartoon pornography. Possibly a merge would be better, but (by looking at the history) my current opinion is that this article needs to go. Prod was removed. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article simply describes a random selection of porn cartoons, not saying how or by whom they were made, whether they were popular or had cultural impact, or what. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanB DanD (talk • contribs) .
  • RETAIN: This is an excellent article on an important and popular subject. The links were probably added because they are associated with images that document the text, showing examples of the parodies that the article discusses. Initially, as the article's "History" page shows, Arichnad attempted to delete this article without bothering to seek a consensus, in violation of Wikipedia's policy. (Ut was actually nominated for deletion only after it was restored, following the initial deletion.) As a compromise, I have deleted the links about which Arichnad expresses concern, retaining only the article's text. I believe that the article should be retained, as it is no longer a threat (if it ever was) and, again, it addresses an important and popular subject. Gpscholar 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) gpscholar
    • Reply - "Arichnad attempted to delete this article without bothering to seek a consensus, in violation of Wikipedia's policy." You are incorrect. I followed policy exactly. Please read the section on WP:PROD for more information on the prod template. In addition, I cannot delete articles. I am not an admin. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and DanB DanD. Redirect to Cartoon pornography would probably be a good idea...nothing to merge here as it's all unsourced. -- Scientizzle
    • Comment Gpscholar/172.191.171.5, please don't copy & paste the material from this article into others, as you did to Hentai. -- Scientizzle 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced original research. Lazybum 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Arichnad. Jdcooper 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom to dump the edit history and recreate as redirect to Cartoon pornography. Nothing here worth including. --Kinu t/c 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — to Cartoon pornography - Glen 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom, WP:NOR and WP:V Æon Insane Ward 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century

Hardly encyclopedic, and hardly useful as well. A confusing and unneccessary mish-mash of fictional events fropm dozens of fictional works. --FuriousFreddy 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I like the idea, potentially very interesting. There are obvious completeness issues; does this article propose to include every work of fiction ever? But invoking the philosophy of eventualism, I can vote to keep this. I just did the "Friend test" (linking this article to a few of my friends to gauge their reaction), and they all said "wow" or "cool" or something, which tells me that this is an interesting premise for an article (and you can't argue with the Friend Test...) Jdcooper 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form. As was noted above, this is a fascinating idea and a bold concept. But it's too open-ended. Theoretically, any event from any work of fiction qualifies. Already the list is quite long and not very organized. But I'm always willing to reconsider. I suggest the authors establish criteria for inclusion (perhaps only including alternative history: things that are contrary to what actually happened), group the events so it seems less random, and get back to us. SliceNYC 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, invoking the philosophy of immediatism. Wikipedia must be more than "Possible-probable, my black hen/She lays eggs in the relative when/She doesn't lay eggs in the positive now/Because she's unable to postulate how." This is not a sound article because fictional events occurring at about the same time in different works of fiction are not really connected. Organizing these unrelated events by date is original research, and is also intrinsically unencyclopedic; if it were encyclopedic, someone could and should have already written an article on the topic of Fictional historical events. The only practical use I can think of for such a list would be for a novelist who wanted to write a novel mixing other novels' fictional histories. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a breakout of Timeline of fictional historical events, which was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events. I strongly recommend reading that discussion. Uncle G 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion remains unchanged from the prior discussion, by the way. That this has finally expanded enough to warrant a breakout article; that the breakout has been done the wrong way, by time period rather than by universe; and that this mish-mash is the result demonstrate the very point that I made back in January 2005. Uncle G 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But with changes- While the idea of a timeline of mythical creatures is a good one, this articles references seem to be made up mostly of television shows. I see maybe 25%books or liture references and the rest seem to be either comic books or shows. also it doesnt seem to capture all of them, being a person who has researched fictional or mythical creatures, it seems to me that you may not be able to get them all on one page and perhaps it should be divide by time(ie- fictional charetcters of big bang-whatever, dinousour fictional creatures, fictional creatures pre-homosapian, and so on in that forth so you may encompass all of them. With it's current state it may be better to delete and just start all over.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.122.230 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 00:12:13
  • Delete Because something is not done well is not grounds for deletion. But in this case, the entire approach strikes me as flawed. The content would be far better merged into individual articles pertinent to each fictional source, rather than presented as a hopelessly mixed up compendium as is done here. That way, the inherent bias (e.g. for overwhelmingly English language fictional sources) is rendered irrelevant and a logical and usable structure could be provided. By the same logic, [Timeline of fictional historical events]] should be parsed in the same way. Eusebeus 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus. :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this can never be more than a jumble of unrelated, conflicting, mostly trivial dates and events, many interwoven with real ones -- there are literally (pun intended) hundreds of fictional works placed during the US Civil War, just digging through those (like the momentous occasions of Scarlett O'Hara's birth, marriage, being sworn to, etc.) would take longer than the war lasted to read. Carlossuarez46 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep in some form; merges are not governed by AfD, anyone may initiate that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of housemate deaths on Drawn Together

Obviously all original research. Also of no encyclopedic merit as well. --FuriousFreddy 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. First of all, this list has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Second, each of these deaths is mentioned in the corresponding episode's article, making the list superfluous. Srose (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not original research; it simply summarizes events that happened on the show. The information is completely verifiable by watching the episodes.Raymondluxuryacht 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: While it's not original research, the character deaths are found in each corresponding episode's article. Srose (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If the info already exits in Wikiepdia, then pulling into one article is not OR. :) Dlohcierekim 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikiepdia is not a paper encyclopedia. Not my cup of tea, but I suppose someone would want to look this up. We have less extensive list articles that condense information that a user would need to run from article to article to find otherwise. :) Dlohcierekim 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The character deaths are a significant feature of the show and an essential part of their unique style, similar to the list of The Simpsons' couch gags or Bart's chalk board phrases. Missnickers 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge with Running gags on Drawn Together, as it is an important running gag on this series. TransUtopian 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Running gags on Drawn Together. Kickaha Ota 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per TransUtopian. QazPlm 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who were police officers

Nonsense, as said in previous afd which for some reason was ignored. ...And Beyond! 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Where do I begin? The list is probably unmaintainable (when one counts minor actors and actresses, it's easy to see that there are tens of thousands of people in the American and British film industries alone), and entirely unencyclopedic. It's just a random collection of information. Srose (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete useless listcruft. Eusebeus 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a useless page that don't deserve to be on Wikipedia.Agoodperson 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, random list. Gazpacho 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A little to random for me. I don't see it as maintainable-- would be all inclusive and why? :) Dlohcierekim 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close and delete. It's been discussed already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceiling Cat - there, Drini promised to delete it as soon as the related image is deleted, but apparently forgot it. —Misza13 T C 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceiling Cat

Non-notable —Mets501 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

delete Non-notable, WP:ASR etc. --pgk(talk) 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoguide

Fails WP:WEB and has an insufficient Alexa ranking (94,000 or somewhere in the vicinity).

I am also nominating Truckguide, Motorcycleguide, and Tekguide under the same criteria. Autoguide actually has the highest Alexa of the four. Crystallina 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I had prod'd it b/c somebody had used {{db-advert}}. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added the other three if ye want to comment on them as well. Crystallina 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, my delete vote is for all four. I think they all had been prod'd previously. Thank you for your clarification request. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly advertising, and from what I can see these sites are all basically linkfarms. Fan-1967 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable per Alexa. Also, the stroboscopic flashing art logo was just over the top.-- :) Dlohcierekim 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTV's 22 Greatest Voices in Music

As this is MTV's intellectual property, it's a copyright violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete we do not need an article for every list produced by a TV show, magazine, radio program, etc. -- Whpq 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN clutter —Tamfang 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • pls. don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:210.213.110.10 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE: There's nothing wrong with having a countdown by a major network.—Preceding unsigned comment added by user:24.4.27.23 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't see how this is notable. Ghits ~90IMDB = 0 :) Dlohcierekim 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The list is notable and useful. I see no reason to get rid of it. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Yanksox 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koreaphobia

Neologism. Doubt there's really much room for improvement, but in any case, this should probably go into the articles of the respective national teams. fuzzy510 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: My first inclination was to delete (in fact I considered AfDing this long ago), but a glance at the Korean language version suggests there is quite a bit of room for expansion. I'll see if I can't work up a partial translation --currently I'm busy deletion sorting. -- Visviva 10:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and verifiable phenomenon. The term is not common in English, but cannot be really described as a neologism, since it is a literal translation of the well-established Chinese word. -- Visviva 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like OR or a sports feature or something made up in school one day. ~200 g-hits. Not verifiable account of a theory behind a sporting event. :) Dlohcierekim 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey now, I'm just the translator. :-) Just trying to flesh things out a bit. Sport is not my field of expertise, so I leave it to others to tidy up the language. But I'm curious -- do you think that the Chinese, Japanese and Korean versions of this article should also be deleted? -- Visviva 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not something made up in school one day. It is a term coined by the press and the sports fans whenever China faces Korea or something. It's not a something like a scientific theory in the first place. mirageinred 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-referenced account of a verifiable phenomenon. The title is the most intuitive translation of the Korean/Chinese term. Kappa 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I expected something about Koreans in Japan at the time of Kanto plain earhtquake, not garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It may not be something notably existent in English language consciousness, but still notable nonetheless.--Merkurix 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, Koreaphobia is frequently used in Korea (of course), so the Korean version of the article shouldn't be deleted. While it is a made up term (clearly it's not real), it's a term used to describe a phenomenon like brain drain or Hallyu, or something like that. I say it is notable. mirageinred 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: The content is substantially different from that reviewed by the previous AfD, containing more content and numerous citations, so I don't believe arguments to delete based on speedy deletion criterion G4 carry much weight. Apart from that we have a discussion mainly split roughly evenly between simple "is notable" and "is not notable" assertions. No consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Young (naturopath)

Speedy delete due to reposted content(CSD G4). Dr. Robert Young already failed Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young. The article was recreated by someone else as Dr. Robert Young, then moved to Robert Young (naturopath) by me before I noticed the repost. (Closing admin: please watch for socks.) Medtopic 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep seems like a noteworthy fraud. Nickieee 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as repost if content is substantially the same, just Delete otherwise. Non-notable quack as per previous AfD. Fan-1967 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The content is very different indeed. The previous article presented Young's theories as established fact, and contained none of the content in this article pertaining to fraud. Uncle G 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The previous article went through a lot of changes. Early versions were attack pages. Later ones were favorable to him. Fan-1967 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Recently the article has included a number of important references to fraudulent activities people should be able to access.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.16.39 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. As with the previous version, the article changes between promotion for this person and attacks against him. Either way, it should not be kept. Fan-1967 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — As someone who has been in the nutrition industry for over 10 years, although his theories are complete quackery, unfortunately he is definitely notable. Google search for "Robert Young" pH yeilds 64,100 results - Glen 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Including Dr. Robert Young geologist, S. Robert Young, Obstetrician, Dr. Robert Young, plastic surgeon, Robert Young, deceased actor, etc. The google test doesn't work so well with common names. -- Avi 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — I agree to keep based on the above - he is a notable figure in the natural health arena and whether you agree with his ideas or not - other people will want to know about him. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to provide neutral information - not add/delete articles based upon whether you believe someone or something. If you don't agree with his theories then make sure the article is balanced - don't just delete it. Therefore, if you were that worried about his research being fact or not, surely you would just have to caveat your paragraph with 'It has been suggested that some of his theories are not scientifically sound, however, he states that....etc' - I can't help but feel that personal viewpoints and perspectives take precidence over the overall good that Wikipedia tries to provide sometimes. 61.88.251.46 9:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No one has said to keep or delete the article based upon whether or not they agree with his theories or POV. -Medtopic 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I did describe him as a "non-notable quack", but my deletion vote was based on the non-notable part, not the quackhood (quackness?). Fan-1967 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Only purpose seems to be to disparage or attack the subject. Wikipedia is not a repository for every bit of dirt or scandal that can be dredged up. :) Dlohcierekim 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: useful information not easily found elsewhere and appears to have factual basis—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misgro (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep I looked under his name. He was strongly recommended by Anthony Robbins. That makes him notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.115.78 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete Maybe not a speedy, but we do not need to keep a record of every quack, dick, and harry either. Avi 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly non-notable -- Samir धर्म 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, simply nn. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost. Non-notable the first time around, "plus ça change..." Ifnord 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nickieee. Orsini 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Glen, notable within the nutrition industry for over a decade. RFerreira 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep by unanimous consensus. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review's decision to overturn previous deletion in December 2005 [78]. This nomination was made by The Fear (talk • contribs) on his second day at Wikipedia and lacks AFD experience in properly researching the article's subject and referring back to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've left a message on The Fear's talk page politely asking that he make more of an effort in preparing future AFD nominations. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leeroy Jenkins

He's not noteworthy. i dont know even if he's a person or not. The Fear 22:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Interesting to see he got mentioned in an academic conference on computer gaming, as follows: If there is one icon of the WoW player, one movie from the game that everyone has seen, it is without a doubt “Leeroy Jenkins.” It has been popular enough to leave traces throughout web-based popular culture and virtual media, from viral video sites to a storefront with Leeroy merchandise at cafepress.com, even in sly references found in comics and other computer games. That's pretty good going for a crappy gaming meme. Vashti 22:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I disagree; in my opinion, he's incredibly noteworthy. I don't know about most people, but I have never been mentioned on Jeopardy! Nor does my name get 164,000 Google hits, with 732 unique hits out of the first 1,000. Nor has a meme relating to me become one of the biggest memes of the past couple of years. Now, I'm absolutely assuming good faith, but the fact that the nominator's username was created today and has only been used for AfDs (and the sandbox) means that this user is quite inexperienced, and should perhaps be advised to wet his feet some more in WP before doing something such as proposing obviously significant topics for deletion. -- Kicking222 23:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No, not a real person, but a meme that had definite staying power. I think the article does a satisfactory job of asserting notability. SubSeven 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... while memes generally suffer from recentism, this one has staying power, as SubSeven points out. It's been repeatedly referred to in the media, even on Jeopardy!, so it's definitely not your average internet phenomenon that gets vanispamverted here. Beyond that, it's sourced, has a neutral point of view, and is not original research. --Kinu t/c 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: It's one of the few internet memes that actually is noteworthy enough to stay and the article does a good job pointing out why this is so. Sounds to me like a bad faith nomination. --SeizureDog 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd eliminate at least 3/4 of the entries in internet memes, many of which were mostly forgotten a month after they occurred, but this one's notable and has stayed around. Fan-1967 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Saying that Leeroy Jenkins is not a notable person is like saying "Captain Crunch" is not a noteworthy military figure. If the first sentence of the article does not make it clear that this is a character in a video clip that became popular on the Internet, I'd suggest a little lighter reading than Wikipedia. Wavy G 01:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you meant Admiral Crunch. I hear he got promoted. :P --Kinu t/c 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My apologies to him and Archduke Chocula. Wavy G 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this isn't a bad-faith nom, then it's clearly an unresearched one. BoojiBoy 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see deleting some memes... but this got national press attention and a mention on Jeopardy. Clearly over the threshold. Captainktainer * Talk 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a net meme that'll be around for a while. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep one of the most known memes in WoW, was features on Jeopardy!, several publications on the net, and in print. Aswell as TV shows. Havok (T/C/c) 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, possibly speedy as a WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, If we had everyone nominate an article for deletion everytime they hadn't heard of the subject then most of Wikipedia would disappear, do some research before you nominate. --Boyinabox 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--Peephole 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Truth theory

Truth theory was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-17. The result of the discussion was "nomination wthdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth theory.

One person original research essay. Userfy or delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes with reasons

  • redirect to Truth Keep: After a quick review and search I was able to find this to be a valid subject of study in philosophy and in the study of learning and education.

    This search on Google finds about 30,000 entries: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Truth+Theory%22+-Wikipedia

    Here is top result of the search: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/truth-theory.php :

    • theory of truth (1935)
    • Semantic concept formalized by the Polish-American mathematician and logician Alfred Tarski (1902-1983), although other thinkers had previously discussed the idea.
    • Truth theory concerns the truth-values of sentence structures in various formal logical languages. Tarski suggested a table by which these values could be determined (although he was less sure about whether the same rules could be applied to natural languages).
    • Also see: correspondence theory of truth
  • In addition, the primary contributor Jon Awbrey is apparently an actual academic with some expertise in the study of education, and I presume has real knowledge in this area. This does not seem to be original research:

    http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm

    There was also a previous AfD -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth theory -- a few months ago where the decision was taken to keep the article.

    Finally, this Wikipedia article was referred to in the September 2006 edition of the Atlantic Monthly and linked to in the online version of it.

    Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • yep, aware of all of that. The Truth theory you find on the Internet and in books bears no resemblance to this article, which is the one-man-essay by Jon Awbrey, who promised everyone he was leaving (via a very long email chain to the en wiki mailing list) but has failed to keep that promise. Pity, but we're stuck with him; must we also be stuck with his essay? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix, if in error. "Truth theory" certainly exists, though I am only familiar with the term from linguistics, to which the author makes a nod and no more. The answer to an article that's in error is correction, not deletion. "Truth theory" isn't a neologism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Truth Theory is dealt with in the Wiki at Truth. This article is a fork, POV or not. Banno 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the OR can be overcome by the close of this AfD. Failing a delete, the article would need to be massively rewritten as it violates WP:NOR. Note to BCorr -- Google is nice and all that (although I think this over-reliance on Google hits is utterly ridiculous), but hardly a factor when it comes to determining the disposition of an OR essay. That the topic exists is not doubted, but what is at issue here is its presentation on Wiki. The fact that the article essay was allegedly linked in AM is of little importance as well. That AM failed to see that it was an essay is their problem, not ours.
    • One other point: the fact of something being a neologism (refering to the anon who forgot to sign) is of little importance as well, as all words in every language in the world were neologism at one time. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • BTW, you need to narrow your search a bit: while the words truth and theory show up on the same page, they are not adjacent for a majority of the hits you noted. If we try "intitle:"truth+theory"" we get 48 hits, including four about a rock band named, you guessed it, Truth Theory. See my above point about over-reliance on Google hits. Unless you appropriately limit your search, and unless you are willing to go through them all to separate the wheat from the chaff, the numbers are often meaningless (as in the case of the 30K hits). •Jim62sch• 10:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Truth: This article simply does not deal adequately with theories of truth. These are dealt with in the main article truth. Our options might be:
    • Move the material at truth to this article - a minimal gain for a great deal of work.
    • Re-write the present article so that it reproduces the material at truth - but what would be the point?
    • Merge anything of value here to Truth and re-direct - my preference. This should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Banno 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Jon Awbrey makes some fair points below. Besides, this is Wikipedia. It must have somwhere close to 65,535 articles on Pokemon alone. What's the big brouhaha?? I now suspect this may be a personal vendetta (not to say something larger) against the relatively sophisticated style of writing of Mr. Awbrey. I have experienced similar persecution in this forum on many occasions. I change my vote.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • if this article ought to contain anything, it ought to be a brief description of the various theories of truth - roughly, truth# Major theories of truth. But that section already exists; therefore the material at theories of truth is redundant.
      • Not sure if it is more accurate to describe Jon's writing as "sophisticated" or just "sophist". For example, Truth theory#Elements of theory reveals an eccentric map of truthbearers, with an implicit bias towards Peirce's analyse of language and the whole unsupported by citations. Such writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia.
If it is I whom you are accusing of a "vendetta", please say so. If others think my objections unfair, I will remove them and abstain from further comment on the AfD and not edit the article involved until the issue is settled. Banno 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You have some good points. Still, I say the article just needs to be cut down a bit and better-referenced. But this is no reason for deletion. We have 65,535 articles and a whole Wikiproject on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Wiki can handle another one on truth. I was absoltely not accusing you of "vendetta". And "vendetta" was probbly the wrong word anyway. "Crusaders for a minimalist use of English", may be more appropriate. As someone else put it, "business style sheet pushers." Sentences should be no more complex than: "SEE SPOT RUN." The nominator seems to be part of this cabal. I will say no more. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was originally argued by its primary author to be a useful place to put highly technical theoretical matters related to the issue of truth. It hasn't served this purpose, and appears to hold little promise of serving the purpose in the future. . ... Kenosis 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Truth. Contains good information and a lot of references, though lacking inline citations. Repairable. Also keeping per above and previous keep afd. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you note the discussion of the references on the article talk page? Are you saying it is a worthwhile article simply because it contains a long list of philosophical publications? Fine then, merge it with List of publications in philosophy! Banno 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that we have a number of "... theory of truth" articles; so the term deserves either an article or merging with in Truth. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But why "Keep or merge" rather than "delete or merge"? As explained above, the topic is dealt with at Truth. What is worth keeping under the heading truth theory?
Because the topic actually deserves a separate article, and now clutters the Truth article, though there it's currently dealt with in a more encyclopedic style. And, in case of deletion, I'd consider Userfy - I'm sure some source like, maybe, Wikiinfo would accept it. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikiinfo is an excellent sugestion for this material. Banno
  • Keep, duh. Exact phrase Google search on "Theory Of Truth" yields 231,000 hits:
Theory Of Truth.

JA: Other reasons, as I think of them:

  1. JA: Editors familiar with the situation know perfectly well that the article Truth is large already (58 kb), and that it's likely to keep on growing with the inclusion of more and more subsections on individual philosophers. Thus it would not gracefully absorb the material here, a large portion of which was in fact massively deleted once before by a particular editor (and his probable meta-puppets) on the grounds that it was too "advanced", "technical", and so on. These were his/their words. He/they further objected to standard scholarly and I daresay WP:VERIFIABILITY practice of quoting original sources, especially if they were Classical or even just pre-20th century. This made it impossible to maintain a balanced and I daresay WP:NPOV account of the announced subject matter, namely Truth. Jon Awbrey 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. This would seem to be an argument for a merge from truth. Banno
      1. JA: I cannot see your reasoning there, as that would do nothing to alleviate the size problem. Jon Awbrey 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. JA: A cursory scan of the first page of the Google report — as if we needed that Guess for leaven — shows that there are more kinds of Truth in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the current Wikipedia article on Truth. So I can't see why this town ain't big enough for all of us. Jon Awbrey 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. JA: With regard to the evident imperfections in the current state of the article — what can I say that isn't better writ in the Shade on the Porch beneath the WP:Five Pillars? The Joy of Wiki writing is that you can start from where you are and work toward something better. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what I am about. Jon Awbrey 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. JA: As I have said, this article came into its current state as a salvage operation, populated at first by the orphans of dis-content that were being tossed out of the bathwater and into the streets in the neighborhood of the ostensible Truth. Since nobody else has taken a positive interest in it, and since I have had many other pressing matters, it has not matured as quickly or as healthily as it otherwise might have done if any of us had given it a lttle more constructive time and thought. To be continued ... or not? ... that is the question, isn't it? Jon Awbrey 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. JA: A few words with regard to the Citations, References, Bibliography (or Further Reading), and their relationship to each other. I have had many occasions to explain my way of working to Banno, Kenosis, Lacatosias, and the other editors with whom I have actually collaborated on many articles over the past year, but since it does not seem to have been the most memorable of occasions for them, and again for the sake of those who were lucky enough to miss all that, I will try to gistify my methods more briefly here. I have followed pretty much the same practices since first being instructed in them by my junior high school teachers, when we first started writing sourced research papers, way back when. Jon Awbrey 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. JA: Woodman! Spare that tree! (To be continued, Monday, maybe …) Jon Awbrey 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. JA: Monday, already? Anyway, I've explained all this to the usual suspects many times before, but I was taught that it's best to gather your notes and references together beforehand, and get all that picky stuff out of the way first. So I normally type in the references that I'm planning to use first, then I type in the primary source quotations and triple-check all that mindless verbatim fussiness before I start writing the transitions, as it takes two different cognitive sets altogether to do these two different tasks. So that is why the References section tends to look "bloated" at the start. I used to put the meantime uncited references in the Bib (or Further Reading), as it never hurts the reader to know about major works in the topic area, and then move them up to Refs as I cited them. But that got to be a pain as it made it hard to edit in sections, so more lately I have taken to combining the Refs and the Bib. The reason why the Refs stay so uncited for so long is — of course — because of all the fights that constantly break out over every little bit of text that one adds to the article, up to and including all the time that we waste on a process like the present litigation. And then, of course, by the time you can get your neck out of hot water long enough to do more work on the article, somebody has gone and been so deleteriously bold as to delete all the references that you busted your Ars to look up. But some people just seem to prefer that exciting sort of hue and cry to the duller work of writing articles, so we are forced to let them have their fun, even though it's hardly fun for everyone. And so it goes — mostly nowhere. Jon Awbrey 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. JA: On to the WP:OR question. This is not original research. It is simply unfamiliar material to a few of the generally unfamiliar readers who have taken over the local lordship of anything they regard as the exclusive domain of the Wikipedia philosophy project. One tries to be polite, but people force you to the point of having to speak some harsh truths. I wish they would just quit doing being so obstructive, and adopt an attitude that permits the learning of others, and maybe even their own. Jon Awbrey 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with massive rewrite/merge-There should certainly be a page on Truth Theory, though it shouldn't be this one. My recommendation would be to take pretty much all of the Philosophy of Truth section of the Truth page and put it here. The essay that currently resides here should be pretty much deleted, with just some basic info retained for the section on classical philosophers. The Truth page is already too big as it is. I think, conceptually, the truth page should just include the basic info in section 3 plus a paragraph or two on the Philosophy of Truth (linked here, of course). Beyond that that, I think it would work better to retitle this page "Philosophy of Truth" with "truth theory" redirecting to it. Just a suggestion. Trnj2000 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

JA: We seem to be wandering into issues that are certainly interesting to discuss but that may be more generic than the specific issue to be decided here, so I've added another subhead for that. Plus it helps to edit in smaller sections. Still, I don't really have the sort of full time to spend here that I used to, so I hope that this proceeding will still be around as an open issue next week. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Hey! Don't knock La Buffarina! (She might knock you back.) But serially, folks, I would not call it a cabal or a vendetta — yet — but some of the plaintiffs of this action are known to have a distinctive POV that amounts to a categorical imperative about how all WP articles should be written, with regard to their level and style, and I guess "Business Object Style Sheet" (BOSS) is a pretty good name for it. I have betimes made the observation that WP:P&G does not dictate any so restricted a theory about such things as intended reader, reader model, target audience, and so on. Of course we all strive to make information as widely comprehensible as humanly possible on both sides of the human equation, but it is simply not possible to deny the practical limits on the side of the reader and the writer alike. And there are many, many topic areas in WP where the writers do not feel obligated to omit from treatment what they cannot make immediately grokkable by the so-called "generally unfamiliar reader". Jon Awbrey 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The really amusing thing about this reader model issue to someone who knows the full range of my work on WP — for instance, yours truly — is that some of my earliest and most persistent efforts have been dedicated to that elusive butterfly of love's labors lost, the aim of "making technical articles more accessible". For instance, at the article on information theory and the complex of articles relating to relational algebra, relational databases, and the relational model. If you do not see any evidence of my labors there, it is because the techno-purists on the scene at the time and making their entrances later were having none of that dilutionary mass appeal, not even in the introductions. A little more of my efforts do survive in the complex of articles concerned with propositional calculus and truth tables. Still, I find that it is just as thankless a task making tech arts accessible as it is making pop arts like WP Truth more technically challenging than what was standard fare in the 1850's, if not in fact the 1250's, though under a host of other names, of course. Jon Awbrey 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsoniac

neologism... the only relevant result in Google is from answers.com, which copied the definition over from an earlier Wikipedia article. Previously deleted with prod. — ERcheck (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NEO, no WP:RS indicating any sort of mainstream usage. --Kinu t/c 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only relevant result in Google is from answers.com, which copied the definition over from a previously PROD'd Wikipedia article. Also per Kinu above. --Czj 23:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Yomanganitalk 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows "Fiji"

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor do we deal with unsubstantiated rumourmongering. This supposed release of Windows apparently doesn't even exist. If at some point in the future new information becomes available, then we can create a new article on it. -/- Warren 22:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pending confirmation. Mary Jo has historically been a very unreliable source. Gazpacho 07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until proven, content says nothing significant and just leads to more confusion surrounding the future of Vienna than anything. Additionally, History of Microsoft Windows states the rumours of "Fiji" were false. JamesWeb 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weir House

Hall of residence - not notable in itself and cannot see a good way to merge to the university. Prod removed without comment Peripitus (Talk) 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Individual halls of residence are not encyclopedia-worthy. User:Angr 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Peripitus (Talk) 08:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletification - In my experience, the people who come from Weir House are mainly arrogant pricks. If that isn't enough reason to delete, then I don't know what is.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midnighttonight (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 August 2006.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globat

It's like a personal diary of an advertisement. Delete. Green caterpillar 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This looks like a fine article I see nothing out of the ordinary to constitute deletion on the wikipedia network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycawho (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I see plenty wrong. For one, it is a page representing the writer's personal opinion of a company. Furthermore, it is written in first person and does not portray encyclopedic writing. The article is written for the purpose of promoting the company. I think it qualifies a speedy deletion. Wikipediarules2221 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either WP:SPAM or WP:NOT epinions.com. --Kinu t/c 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the same article exists at Globat web hosting review; this should be deleted too. --Kinu t/c 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have speedied that duplicate article. --Stormie 23:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic content. --Stormie 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR. Yomanganitalk 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withrawn by nominator. Ifnord 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J2 Global Communications

Non-notable corporation. Was PROD'ed but removed. Fails WP:CORP. Note that simple listing on a stock exchange does not meet criteria for notability. Delete. Ifnord 23:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I wish I had more to say. Yomanganitalk 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Market cap of $1.17 billion, pioneer of internet-based fax services, very large customer base, covered by analysts at major financial groups [79], etc, etc. Clearly meets WP:CORP. Eusebeus 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Eusebeus said. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad googling on my part led to the delete (it was late, what can I say). I've added a ref for notability, but I don't think I'm interested enough to expand the rest of the article even though it is expandable. Yomanganitalk 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowclan

Non-notable gaming group. Deleted twice as CSD A7, but creator claims it has been mentioned in the media. No references provided as of last deletion. I'm restoring to seek a consensus for its removal, if no reliable media references have been provided. Kimchi.sg 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if sourced - Gaming clans are notable (within the game's scope) but the game's website should show some award or w/e to show the clans notability/notoriety.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. If sources are added, I might reconsider. Nickieee 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an article done by WoW giving Shadowclan the Guild of the Week award. Shadowclan was World of Warcrafts the very first Guild of the Week. There's more though but some of it is old and i'm having trouble digging it up. Please be patient. Bagginator 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT an "article done by WoW" and it is very misleading to describe it as such, as if Shadowclan was some sort of official World of Warcraft "guild of the week". This is just an article and an award from an MMO fansite. --Stormie 06:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Fixed.Bagginator 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is featured image of Shadowclan from the game Shadowbane Shadowclan Virakt Bagginator 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a book that mentioned Shadowclan Interview with Ogur, a Shadowclan Member Which can be seen here in the Index with one of our members Ogur. Bagginator 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
An article on UO.Com that features Shadowclan. Here's another by the Town Cryer at uo.com. Here's a reference to our guild and city we built on the treachery server of Shadowbane. Bagginator 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gaming clans are not notable. Fan-1967 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is another article on Stratics about the Seige Perilous Shard which mentions Shadowclan and links to the homepage. Bagginator 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an interview conducted by Only-War, the news site for the new game coming out called Warhammer.Bagginator 01:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that gaming clans are NN. TJ Spyke 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Article edited and linked sources added to demonstrate notability from reliable media sources.Bagginator 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Normally i would say guilds are non notable, but its obvious this guild has been the subject of much attention, even by the creators of the games they reside on. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most gaming groups are non-notable but this one seems to be. It has been written into the official lore behind at least two games, which are Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot. The Ultima Online references are posted above, but the Dark Age of Camelot reference can be found at [80], where Mythic Entertainment was so impressed with how they influenced the community they were added to Mythic Entertainment's official description of an in-game character race.Khasha'an 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This clan is an archetype. It is widely known among game designers and is a part of MMORPG history. For example, it is referenced on Terra Nova, a roundtable of many of the movers and shakers in game design in this article/discussion (third section from the bottom). Shadowclan is often referenced casually like this, as it is assumed that the other game designers will know the clan and its influence. Though, some reading their roundtable might not catch the reference, but that's what wikipedia is for, right? Yuut 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This clan has helped to shape online gaming communities and culture through revolutionary ideas on what comprises roleplay and how to do it. It is refrenced by game designers and even included in a gaming company's game lore. If you can put game lore into Wiki (which you can) this easily qualifies. Normally guilds are NN, but this one seems to be more than just a guild, more closely related to a loosly held organization or cultural entity. Zinian 16:23, 15th August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The gaming organization is reasonably sourced from outside publications. It is apparent that it has had a significant impact on the MMORPG gaming community, including the very games themselves. -Shazbot85 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Wikipedia gets a lot of people wanting to add articles for their guilds and clans, and probably 99.9% of them are completely non-notable. But Shadowclan has gotten a good amount of external press, and certainly is in that upper echelon of most well-known and significant clans - I'd heard of their activities in Ultima Online, and I've never played the game. --Stormie 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Added an audio interview of Fogroth of Shadowclan from June of 2001 by Fear of BattlevortexBagginator 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Costello

nn model, page was previously deleted. Burgwerworldz 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Film and other credits assert notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. If it were up to me alone, I would love to have a detailed article on every woman who has been a "Juggy Dancer" on The Man Show, but unfortunately I don't think this actress meets the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. For some that do, see [81] and [82]. --Satori Son 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE Due to a lack of information, this page should be deleted.MgHoneyBee 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on listed film credits. -- JHunterJ 04:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.Um Wikipedia Said It Was Fine Before, There's No Point In Deleting It.Keep10O
  • Comment. I can't find anything on this article having been through AfD before. Can you provide a link? Otherwise, do you have any other reason to voice a Keep opinion? --Satori Son 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's where the page was previously deleted: 1 Burgwerworldz 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, that's where the article was Speedied previously under CSD. I'm not really sure what Keep10O means by "it was fine before." --Satori Son 23:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camille Anderson

nn model Burgwerworldz 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not just a model. See the filmography in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's had lots of modeling and acting work, so I'd say she's 'notable'. MikeH411 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Due to a lack of information, this page should be deleted.MgHoneyBee 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I wonder what the fuss is about. The article has enough information in the way of filmography to deserve the stub template. If anyone feels otherwise then he should only try to add more info, not ask for its deletion. Unitedroad 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE or REDIRECT I have to disagree with you. It seems like her filmography is all extras or stand-ins which don't really make her a film star, just an extra.Why don't you try and add to it since you want to keep this page but if you can't the page should be deleted.Just because she's been in some magazines doesn't mean she needs a page.Also I don't know anyone who remebers her from WEdding Crashers.Sorry.MgHoneyBee 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Well your second entry to the vote should be comment not a another delete vote. You probably have alot more experience on WP so probably it might not seem very proper to you that I said this but I have no intention of offending you, just felt I should tell you. Unitedroad 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Into The Black

Internet television show with 1 episode in production, others in pre-production. It hasn't generated any independent coverage, so it fails under WP:V, WP:N, and it seems to be a little bit of crystal balling. This Google search and this Yahoo! search bring up no independent sources. --Wafulz 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nickieee 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources indicating importance. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment So sorry guys, I forgot the sources. I do have sources. Wired Magazine, is a good example. I'm trying to dig up the links, but I've been having a busy day and Wired's search engine isn't agreeing with me.. Joss Whedon has also commented on it on his own site, Whedonesque. Give me some extra time here and I'll get my sources together. A CBC Radio interview/segment with an exclusive scene from the show in audio format has been produced and is just waiting to air. Several Vancouver papers have also picked up the story, although how I'll find them is a mystery. More to come. Zeekthegeek

http://signal.serenityfirefly.com/

  • Mentioned at DVD Blog Pan & Scan:

http://www.panandscan.com/news/show/Joss_Whedon/Serenity/O_Captain,_My_Captain:_Firefly_Fans_Pick-Up_Where_Serenity_Left_Off/654

http://whedonesque.com/?search=Into+the+Black

Assistance? I'm not the greatest at this wikipedia thing, but could I have assistance in applying the sources to the article? I'm not sure in the least where to begin. Also of note: WP:N is just an essay and can't be applied to this or anything else for that matter. speedy keep keep Zeekthegeek I have changed your vote to keep per speedy keep criteria. --Wafulz 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment WP:N is an essay, but WP:NOT and WP:V are indeed official policies. As for sourcing- you need actual content to assert notability first, and then you should source it using reliable sources. --Wafulz 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Right. I'm working on improving the article still to have said content..I forgot to mark it as a stub so far, and I've been trying to find other project fans and the like to contribute with me. Zeekthegeek 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A few things about your sources: The weblogs/podcast don't qualify as reliable sources (very few do), and the Wired article only gives a passing mention to the show (one paragraph in a two page article), so it can't be given much weight. They blogs also seem to have more of a focus towards Firefly than most neutral sources would, so this has to be taken into account. However, I'd still like to see the CBC Radio/Vancouver newspaper piece. Depending on their importance, it could help determine notability- from what I've read the show might become notable in the future, but from the current lack of independent, reliable, third-party sources that we have access to, it doesn't qualify at the moment. --Wafulz 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xavier doom's slayground

nn website that is now closed, gets less than 100 hits on google Burgwerworldz 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nickieee 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can Verify the article's claims of historic significane. Just because the site is now defunct does not mean it is not historically important. :) Dlohcierekim 03:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable anime review sites

Link farm; does not follow a single point of WP:LIST. SeizureDog 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. TheFarix (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. In addition, it violates WP:NOT (1.5) and.. I cringe whenever I see the word 'notable' in an article title. Shiroi Hane 03:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT a link directory. Comes very close to violating WP:CSD A3. ColourBurst 05:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Zerophyte 10:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non manageable list. Saying "this is notable" does not make it so.WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the person who write this article had thier heart in the right place. It's a good attempt on concatenating the various non-notable anime site articles that we have into one, "notable" article. Anime fansites are hardly ever notable. ANN makes it because it is part of a magazine and it had a famous run-in with the RCMP, but there aren't too many other notables out there. --Kunzite 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Widmore

According to accepted practice within Lost editors, characters should only get their own articles if they have flashback episodes or if the actor/actress that portrays them is listed in the opening credits. While Penny Widmore might have a flashback episode in the fall, one cannot/should not determine this now, or speculate. Wikipedical 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Wikipedical 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- PKtm 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Graveenib 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Jwebby91 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - sorry, I wasn't logged in before (I didn't notice). Or we'll end up making it again, anyway, so whatever.
Comment -- See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- PKtm 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- oh thank you so much!! there's a reason i said "Or we'll end up making it again, anyway, so whatever." besides, if we can include the five new season three cast members, why not make pages that will be made in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.167.82 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 August 2006
Comment -- You're welcome. The "why not" is in fact what's covered by Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, specifically, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." -- PKtm 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Demon Hog 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Did they actually think that they could get away with this? (P.S. Are unregistered users allowed to vote?)
  • Delete--Peephole 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Minor characters should not get their own page. If Penny becomes a major character later then recreating this page might be in order. --Jabrwocky7 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --notability not established.65.35.168.248 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OOPS the system must have logged me out. :) Dlohcierekim 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selam Ahderom

As with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_25#Naisan_Azimi, this was prodded for deletion by the article's author, but the prod was contested, so here it is at AfD. Eusebeus 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - non-notable. Cuñado - Talk 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most Bahá'ís well-known among others of our Faith are all but unknown to the general public, including rather major Western figures such as William Sears. I can't really comment on these AfDs as I don't know enough about these people, but it leaves me wondering about what informational standard Wikipedia should be held up to. Danny Lilithborne 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a good argument for keeping Ahderom not only for his status in the Baha'i faith (which I suggest must be roughly comparable to that of a Church of England Bishop: plenty of those in Wikipedia); but - with an eye to countering systemic bias - also for his status as an African academic: he gains 16 Google Scholar hits [83] and a respectable 80 G-hits [84]. Humansdorpie 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • possibly speedy delete -- all non-formatting changes (except two : Eritria -> East Africa -> East Africa (Ethiopia)) are by the original author, who requested deletion. (If not speedy, No Opinion.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unremarkable academic. Golfcam 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsure, non-notable as a Baha'i Counsellor, but possibly as a scholar, and combined together, maybe enough to keep him. -- Jeff3000 17:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, fails prof test too. --Strothra 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per author's request. However, I would be inclined to vote "keep" otherwise, since Councillors seem fairly notable. -- Visviva 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.