Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 14

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:ClockworkSoul per G4. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of Make Believe

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. It was originally deleted here, and was then protected from recreation due to repeated recreations, including changing the guidlines then claiming that it fit. But it's back. Previously, the website, seen here had an Alexa rank of 2.5 million, it is now off the radar with no rank and 90 Google hits. Its sole claim of notability is that it was once mentioned in a "Tech News" (CNET?) article in 2002. This is meaningless, it's like being mentioned in a local paper, and I doubt that the story was centred on this webcomic. (note that the reviews linked are not from professional sources, but in fact reader reviews) This is less notable than the Philip Sandifer incident and no way near as popular as Encyclopedia Dramatica. We should be applying the same standards to webcomics as we do to usual websites. - Hahnchen 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (speedy if it is reposted material). Yomangani^talk 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Death to web comics. SynergeticMaggot 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Repost, tagged as such. — NMChico24 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per NMChico. SorryGuy 01:03, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ClockworkSoul. — NMChico24 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Renard

This is the 3rd nomination for this article. It has been deleted twice before at here and here. If this discussion concludes as a delete, I strongly suggest it be protected from recreation. It might not be vanity, but somehow, I think the way this article professes the subject's deep love of his girlfriend in spite of the great difficulties due to distance, hint at it. Also it mentions of the authors' lack of "passion for fame and attention". Let's help this non-notable internet noncelebrity (just read the article and see what important notable things he's done) achieve this by deleting this article. - Hahnchen 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (speedy if it is a repost) Yomangani^talk 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 if it is indeed similar to either of the originally deleted articles. Delete otherwise as failing WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — per Kinu. SynergeticMaggot 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per above. SorryGuy 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- Whpq 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete tagged as such — NMChico24 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Dinosaur puppy 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 and protect for bad penny. clearly contravenes WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and protect per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:23, 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. Sango123 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scroll Dynasty

Another webcomic on the Comic Genesis free web host, found here. "Scroll Dynasty" manages to attract 30 Google hits and is not mentioned in Comic Genesis' Alexa Report. (even if it were, it probably wouldn't be notable, verifiable or popular anyway). There's nothing between this an a myspace personal. - Hahnchen 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the Ghits are comic directories. Not notable. --Wafulz 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom -- unverifiable through reliable sources and WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, citing notability, verifiability and WP:NOT. ColourBurst 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom NCurse _work 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Martinp23 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wafulz. --Gray Porpoise 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this was probably better tagged with {{prod}} --CPAScott 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 30 google hits isn't enough for it be part of Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Google test. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Indifferent Low notability on Comicgenesis, more than likely unheard of outside comicgenesis. 0.18% of ComicGenesis traffic, 737/7866Notable ComicGenesis comics by traffic appear only in the Top 25 or Next 26-50 Kisai 04:20, 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. Sango123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Select: When Masters Attack

Mega man fan fiction webcomic, found here. A search for "Stage Select" "When Masters Attack" generates 50 Google hits, none from which could be classified as a good source and an Alexa rank of 1 million. This is not a website worth noting in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory for the same reasons its not a phone book. - Hahnchen 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom. Death to webcomics. SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Death not necessarily to webcomics, but definitely to fanfic. Fan-1967 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I love this webcomic, but it fails the website notability guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above, and it fails the website notability guidelines, death to webcomics. Daniel's page ☎ 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Martinp23 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 50 Google hits isn't enough for it to be on Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It didn't have 50 Google hits. When I clicked the link that was given it said there were 1,250. As far as I can tell, the argument here isn't about hits at all, but rather a visceral aversion to webcomic articles. I judge this by the rather ambiguous "Death To Webcomics" post.
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:41, 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. Sango123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swashbuckle

On my universtiy student paper, runs 2 comics. They're not notable, were the comics on your college paper notable? I doubt it. They're not going to become any more notable if they're put onto Angelfire and branded a webcomic, are they? Heck, is anything on Angelfire notable? - Hahnchen 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and for lack of WP:RS indicating why these comics are of any encyclopedic significance. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per WP:NN and WP:V. SynergeticMaggot 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all reasons listed above. --Wafulz 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. -- Dragonfiend
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NN and WP:V Daniel's page ☎ 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. —Khoikhoi 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Martinp23 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...or replace the article's content with a redirect to Swashbuckler. --Gray Porpoise 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --CPAScott 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nn. --Nishkid64 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:01, 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. Sango123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AltNuMet

The following page has been existence since December 2005, and the top of the page notes "This is a temporary page to host a rough draft of the merger of articles Alternative Metal and Nu Metal". However, in almost a year nothing has been merged, and seems to be nothing more than a waste of space. Some would also dispute that nu metal and alternative metal are two seperate genres, and a merger wouldn't be justified. Dmiles21 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge and delete — Thats if the merge hasnt already been done. SynergeticMaggot 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Articles for alt metal and nu metal should be separate. If there's anything new here that should be merged to the separate articles, that should be done. But there's no reason to have a single article about two different genres. — NMChico24 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — mboverload@ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the merge doesn't work, should delete this article anyways. Daniel's page ☎ 06:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — Looks like it's gotten forgotten. ShaunES 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree. —Khoikhoi 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree too, and "rough drafts" should be in user sandboxes or on talk pages, not on the article namespace. Martinp23 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• What's a draft doing in the main namespace? I also object to the article title, but that's a different story. Are alternative metal and nu metal really interchangeable terms? Well, delete if the merge is complete, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Abandoned effort. StuffOfInterest 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This page is abandoned. --Neo139 22:00, 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. Sango123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rp Land

Non-notable web forums, prod removed. Unfortunately, we don't have a CSD for nn-websites, so it can't be speedied. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

wat does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sithlord4 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, a lot of jargon in there. Basically, the subject of the article isn't well-known enough to be included in Wikipedia (see WP:WEB for inclusion criteria for websites), and it's not able to be speedily deleted, so we have to go through this process. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete admits its non-notable in the first sentence.--Crossmr 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete typical forum vanity, even includes a member list (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... hosted on Invision boards, enough said. Fails WP:WEB. Even includes the obligatory 1337 p05t3rz list. Barely coherent article. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - self-admitted as not passing WP:WEB -- Whpq 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Does {{db-group}} apply to internet forums? --Wafulz 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I found that the Sithlord4 who asked about jargon in there was the creator of this article and an admin on RP Land. This now is also a vanity article that also has WP:WEB issues. This was prodded, but the aforementioned Sithlord deprodded it, leading to this AfD. His contributions are all related to Rp Land, except for the Mystic Ruins edit. He also once blanked a page (see his talk), but his contribs don't say so. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - as the user who caught the blanking, I can assure you that his contribs do say so. It's his second edit to this very page, in fact. There's probably a better template to have used than the vanilla "don't blank pages" boilerplate, but that was the only one I could find at the time. BigHaz 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails website notability guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This fails Website notability guidelines, and non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB Martinp23 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. StuffOfInterest 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete vanity/article states the forum isn't even popular itself. Away with it.--Andeh 15:38, 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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Wallonia

Article should be merged back into Wallonia. Article starts with a self-reference.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw nom Article has now been heavily expanded. I think this article is much better than the one that existed when the article was nominated for deletion. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Back-merge anything that meets inclusion standards into the Wallonia article. While informative articles about politics by country are acceptable, information about the political structures of individual states, provinces, districts, etc. is best served by adding to their respective articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote: The article now looks significantly better, and is in the spirit of the other sub-country politics articles mentioned below, in that a better distinction is made as to the politics of Wallonia both within and distinct from the country itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to main article anything that needs merging. -- Whpq 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Somebody could merge this into Wallonia by Meets and inclusion. Daniel's page ☎ 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Martinp23 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no need to compress articles. There's a lot that can be said about this topic. The idea to merge this is strongly biased, confer Politics of Abkhazia, Politics of British Columbia, Politics of Assam, Politics of Toowoomba, Queensland and so forth. Any state that has a separate (which is in this case very separate) government, with its own parliament and secretaries, deserves its own Politics article. I agree that this may not be obvious if you don't know the topic, so here's my telling you. The article just needs decent cleanup and considerable expansion. --Thunderhead 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepStrong Keep. Granted this article has much room for expansion and wikification, but that is no grounds for deletion or merging. The politics of Wallonia differ greatly from the politics of Belgium's other half, Flanders, as exemplified in this article in The Economist. Ardent^†_∈ 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Wallonia, if there's enough for an article after that, recreate it. Carmen Chamelion 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all of above. --CPAScott 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is strong precedent for this sort of article, I removed the self-referential opening, the article just needs clean-up and expansion. ONUnicorn 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as now expanded (and will be expanded further); note that the article was considerably revised since the above opinions were posted so that merge may no longer be a valid option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, vastly improved. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 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 Merge and redirect into Central African Republic. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil unrest in the Central African Republic

Article should be merged back into Central African Republic. Article is very small, linkless, found through Random Article.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect — To a desirable location. SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Macktheknifeau 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Merge and redirect into desirable location. (Per SynergeticMaggot). Daniel's page ☎ 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back though there is the potential for a similarly-titled article to exist, just this isn't it. MLA 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect or expand hugely. Martinp23 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Martinp23 — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge if not expanded. Looks like an article created solely for Portal:Current events posting. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communications in Kazakhstan

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. To call these facts indiscriminate seems like nationalistic bias not allowed by WP:NPOV. The information should remain on Wikipedia on one page or another, maybe in the Kazakhstan page, maybe on this page. But it is not indiscriminate. SliceNYC 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there's an entire category Category:Communications by country for these article. -- Whpq 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect — To Kazakhstan. SynergeticMaggot 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gazpacho. Dinosaur puppy 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wryspy 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Someone could merge this into Kazakhstan. Daniel's page ☎ 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Kazakhstan. By itself, a "communications" article is a fine subject for an article, and an individual article is great if we can get plenty of content on it, but this article amounts to a table of information. While encyclopedic, such an item is more useful in the context of a main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Kazakhstan. NCurse _work 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I merged it. Kazakhstan#Communications_in_Kazakhstan... NCurse _work 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken it out again as lists of facts look ugly in main articles. Piccadilly 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this information isn't quite indiscriminate, it's almost certainly a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook as IIRC it mirrors exactly the format used there. MLA 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, improve and do not merge. Every country has such an article. They were all created by a bot and many have been vastly improved since they were started. That this one hasn't been improved yet is merely a manifestation of systemic bias, but we should keep waiting. Calling this indiscriminate is utter nonsense. Piccadilly 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and rewrite as noted by MLA, this information is a direct copy-paste job from the CIA world factbook in 2001, and as such the information, as well as being copied verbatim, is hugely out of date (3 years is quite a long time in communications infrastructure life). It needs updating, rewriting and merging. 81.159.65.145 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Martinp23 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) no signed in
• Keep ...because of the "by country" category reference. I'm more concerned about the utility of Category:Communications in Kazakhstan. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Piccadilly. Each country has or ought to have such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep because of its current terrible state. However, this is redeemable. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm On the one hand, this information would mean a lot more if it were on the same pages with other countries, for comparison's sake. On the other hand, merging all of the countries onto one page would make a huge, huge page that is difficult to navigate. Let's not kill off good information, but is there maybe a better way to display it? Jacqui^★ 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a series. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a series. Either way, it is not necessary to discuss merges in this forum. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 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.

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara and Jenna Bush

Unneeded, just like a Plusle and Minun page would be. The two subjects are strongly related, and one could take the time to go to Barbara Bush or Jenna Bush anyway. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SliceNYC 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Waste of space. No need for redirect either. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spurious article -- Whpq 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: since the contents of the two articles were once here before being spun off, does this page need to exist, if nothing else, for the history, per the GFDL? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant mboverload@ 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Nothing to merge, redirect would be fruitless. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No longer needed now that Barbara and Jenna each have their own articles. If the GFDL requires that the history be kept, turn it into a redirect to Bush family, but only if needed by GFDL. --Metropolitan90 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. -- RattleMan 06:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant. ShaunES 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as (you guessed it) redundant. —Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (Neostinker 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC))
• Delete redundant Martinp23 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant – they have their own article, bless their little bootses! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete certainly redundant. Consider redirect only if people think users will actually search for "Barbara and Jenna Bush" collectively instead of just "Barbara Bush" or "Jenna Bush" alone. My guess? Will never be typed into the search box, and thus no redirect necessary. --CPAScott 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt that it's going to be of any help. (Wondering why everyone is using the word redundant when you could just say unnecessary and still get the same meaning =]). --Nishkid64 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dev920 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, did anyone saying delete actually READ the page? It's a disambiguation page pointing at the two seperate articles. Whoever first created articles on the "first twins" created ONE article, which was then (rightfully) split into one on each sister. As is unfortunately true of most twins, a great many people think of them collectively, and when looking for information on them would natrually do a collective search. Checking the "What links here" gives us 53 pages including (tellingly, if you ask me) Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Popular pages. To delete this disambiguation page would be a mistake, leaving stranded anyone looking for information about the Bush twins. At the VERY LEAST it should become a redirect pointing at SOMETHING where people can find what they are looking for. Otherwise it would be left open for the creation of redundant articles. (P.S. Redunant and unnecessary aren't exactly the same). ONUnicorn 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt that anyone would type Barbara and Jenna Bush or Jenna and Barbara Bush on a encyclopedia for that matter. Perhaps a delete, then a redirect set to Bush family may suffice? --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family per ONUnicorn. This is a search term that will get a good bit of use. Jacqui^★ 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per ONUnicorn - --Ageo020 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should never have been created as one article in the first place. The edit history should be saved, so make it a redirect to Bush family, rather than either one of them. Bush twins is a redirect here, btw. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Richard 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to a Bush family page or something. Deletion is not an option by the GFDL. Ardric47 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This reminds me, I think it is high time we broke out the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into seperate pages. They're not infants any more; they've each made significant achievements on their own, and are now on top of a multi-billion dollar empire thanks to their numerous product lines marketed by Wal-Mart. GW can only dream that his daughters will ever achieve such success. RFerreira 21:48, 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. Sango123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nterface

Advertising, nn software, article created by User:Nterfacejason. I PRODded, but Nterfacejason removed the PROD, so I bring it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — vainity. SynergeticMaggot 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - the advertising for the company was slapped onto an existing article. I've removed the addition of the company spam. -- Whpq 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in the article which explains its notability. How many users does it have? Has it been cited in major publications? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Technology is no more notable than the company. User:Nterfacejason.
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, and advertisement is strongly prohibited in Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies. Daniel's page ☎ 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not assertation of notability
• Delete non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't stand as notable in itself. Probably warrants some additional explanation in the QuakeNet article. StuffOfInterest 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources WilyD 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete impossible to verify and too small in scope. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:06, 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. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay rights in Brazil

Delete or at least merge with something, this one-sentence vanity article adds nothing on its own. Complete self-serving trash. Courtney Akins 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the article is a pretty poor stub at the moment, but should remain for expansion: there is plenty to be said on the subject, and Wiki has a series of "Gay Rights in [Country X]" which is intended to be comprehensive. It's certainly not "vanity" as it doesn't promote any non-notable person or organization. It's just skimpy in its present form. DanB DanD 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ok, but fair enough, lets merge into Human rights in Brazil for now then split the article off on its own once its hit "critical mass."Courtney Akins 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's self-contradictory. Delete and merge is illegal under the GFDL. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Courtney, you're the nominator, we already know you want to delete it. DanB DanD 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I have to say that the "complete self-serving trash" comment strikes me as a tad inappropriate. I would urge the nominator to strike that and reword it to sound a bit more in keeping with wikiquette. — NMChico24 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge Not sure what to merge into though. I guess the suggestion above makes sense. --Wafulz 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep being focussed on laws and constitutions, the article is neither trash nor vanity(!). Just as valid as Gay rights in Canada or Same-sex marriage in California. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Human rights in Brazil. Once the information because extensive, then recreate the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand The article is a stub, but there are tons of stubs on Wikipedia. The only reason to delete a stub is if there's no possibility to expand the article, or if the article's subject obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I think just about anyone would argue that this subject can definitely be expanded, and a quick search will turn up many related articles for other countries. As for belonging here, the subject of gay rights is unarguably a large and devisive issue for many countries. Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, and the largest of its continent, so the issue of gay rights there is most certainly a notable issue. That being said, this article definitely needs a lot of work. — NMChico24 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Zscout370. --Corporal Punishment 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, part of a series, one man's trash is another man's article waiting to be expanded. Please explain "self-serving". Courtney's characterizations are disturbing, in that not only is it more than one sentence, has nothing at all about it that can be called vanity, and is well-sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NMChico24 and Zoe. This stub has clear possibility for expansion and is actually very well sourced in its own right right now. Merging it as a wait-and-see isn't the best way to approach this, as it involves shuffling content over and then shuffling it back when the (inevitable) expansion occurs, while removing valid categorisation in the meantime. Ziggurat 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is article-worthy. It simply needs to be expanded by a knowledgable editor. Rohirok 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Merging this article to Human rights in Brazil would not eliminate any repetition or make Wikipedia easier to navigate. It would only mess up existing organization by removing the useful "Gay Rights in South America" navigation bar and taking the article out of the "Gay Rights by Country" category. --Celithemis 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this stub per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The nominator hasn't given a valid reason. What are your reasons? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all countries should have an article like this. Everyking 07:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, I agree, this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and other countries probably need specific articles of this nature. -- The Anome 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Gay rights is different from human rights and this is a valid encyclopedia topic. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid stub which is part of a series. StuffOfInterest 13:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - stub is not a valid criterion for deletion, page is linked to by several other pages, has great potential for expansion, et al. WilyD 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - obviously expandable, a topic of wide interest, seeing it belongs to Category:Gay rights by country. Historical information would be welcome, and a discussion of cultural attitudes in the various regions of Brazil also valuable, as well as what mood prevails in those municipalities where anti-gay discrimination is not banned by local statutes; but stubbiness is not a grounds for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Human rights in Brazil. --Gray Porpoise 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the discussion above about the detrimental effects of a merge versus just adding a stub notice to this, could you give a little explanation as to why this is preferable? Ziggurat 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Expand into Human rights in Brazil. --Nishkid64 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand or Merge into Human rights in Brazil. Notable subject. jgp ^T_C 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Human rights in Brazil. --WillMak050389 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the article is naff doesn't mean it should be deleted - it's still noteworthy. Dev920 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Human rights in Brazil -- for now. It's clear the small amount of information here doesn't yet need its own page; however, the noted use of "Gay Rights in X" (where X=country) means a redirect is appropriate. Hopefully there will come a time when the content on gay rights in Brazil is much larger, and then that information could be moved back to Gay rights in Brazil. Jacqui^★ 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This may be a bad-faith nomination because an article the nominator created was nominated for deletion for, among other things, appearing to be vanity. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be easy to expand to half the size of Human rights in Brazil, numerous parallel articles exist. I do think this is a suspect bad faith nom per Icarus. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not the best start, but anyone is free to edit it. Carlossuarez46 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Human rights in Brazil --Richard 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Human rights in Brazil. I do hope that this wasn't a bad faith nomination. Yamaguchi先生 08:08, 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. Sango123 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyla Juliette Schwartz

Fails WP:BIO. No significant press coverage here. Not-notable, Delete. TerriersFan 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not nearly notable enough to earn the article; there are thousands of contestants that have reached round three. --Wafulz 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Leuko 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — {{db-bio}} - Glen 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, and WP:NN Daniel's page ☎ 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - as someone who doesn't watch the show, what does "round three" entail? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs in a list of contestants, not in an article of its own StuffOfInterest 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Should be on the list of contestants, but a separate article is not needed. --Nishkid64 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. No objection to having her on a list of contestants though. RFerreira 21:36, 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 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Yoshino

The article does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. She appears to be notable in her "field", and most JAV actresses are hard-pressed to meet WP:PORN BIO as it is now. 51,000 Ghits, 315 unique. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unless her name is more common than I think, she seems to get enough referencs to warrant an article. StuffOfInterest 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 198,000 G-Hits on her Japanese name. Neier 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO (hence "delete") but Coredesat's comments are interesting (hence "weak") --CPAScott 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It doesn't necessarily meet WP:PORN BIO but I think this article deserves to stay per the number of Google hits. --Nishkid64 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Coredesat as well. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Vehement Delete Her pantaloons are unclean! --Xrblsnggt 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment she's Japanese, PORN BIO is biased towards North American pornstars. 132.205.93.86 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with the anonymous poster that WP:PORN BIO reeks of systemic bias in its current form and shouldn't be used as a notability guideline. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I find this odd, because I quoted WP:BIO, not WP:PORN BIO, which doesn't cover Japanese pornographic performers as of yet. Interesting. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If any JAV actress is notable, she is. - Wickning1 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, if she is, then where's the claim of notability? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yoshino is a notable Japanese model. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 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. Sango123 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge To Turkey Fund

no evidence of notability--Crossmr 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hey all. I am the author of this article and a member of BTF. I work hard to raise funds for poor kids' education. I am not native Turkish speaker but doing Ph.D. in Economics. Now, can anybody tell me what is wrong with using the web site materials? "Turkiye" means "Turkey" in Turkish. Please take my article out of delete process. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogulsev (talk • contribs)

  WP:NOT wikipedia is not a free webhost or vehicle for advertising.--Crossmr 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, rewrite, rename to "Bridge to Turkiye Fund." The author spelled the name wrong, and the article is basically copied from here. The operation is international in scope, which meets criteria proposed under WP:ORG. --Wafulz 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  I could agree to, rename, rewrite, cite IF someone does it, but I'm not for keeping articles on speculation of improvement.Retracted see below. With no idependent references it fails. If it is copied directly from the site, then its a likely copyvio.--Crossmr 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable charity. Based on search under correct name, I can't find anything that would qualify as independent coverage from reliable sources. Fan-1967 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My results and conclusion are similar to those of Fan-1967. — NMChico24 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — 19 "unqiue" google hits. My pot dealer has more online presense. mboverload@ 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Dude! No I don't! --Tess Tickle 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Macktheknifeau 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT, non-notable, and unsourced. Daniel's page ☎ 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Khoikhoi 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Note there is both Bridge To Turkey Fund and Bridge to Turkiye Fund, which are substantially identical copies and should both be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 14:11, 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. -- Vary | Talk 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianese

WP:ISNOT, a dictionary, publisher of original thought, or a directory. This is a list of words Blessed, Fellowship, Mission, Ministry, and others without references. Each of these words has an article which defines it already. Car54 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of a distinctive "jargon" in a major religious group is significant. While the page may presently contain little other than common words, the social role of this jargon could be an important encyclopedic subject, quite apart from a simple "list of definitions"
  The term outside wiki: [http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=91http://www.arin.net/whois/

Whois] [1] [2] aaaaand...here are two books about it: [3] [4] DanB DanD 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weakest Keep On the surface appears to be a silly neologism, and I'm still not convinced it has much importance. It does appear to be utilised by a lot of different websites, though, and DanB DanD was able to site further usage. — NMChico24 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Documents a distinctive and culturally-relevant jargon. Rohirok 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of 'distinctive "jargon"' Wryspy 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Polari? Engrish? Cockney rhyming slang? Lunfardo? Slang#See_also? DanB DanD 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is more than a mere list of words with definitions. True, it lists examples, but it also discusses religious culture associated with the jargon, sociological implications and influence on popular culture. Also see the counterexamples to your arguments listed by DanB DanD above. Rohirok 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, as DanB DanD has cited outside usage – but I think the whole idea's pretty silly. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per references by DanB DanD, but remove OR elements of the list. Staecker 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep defintely a distinctive jargon. Carter 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• No one's going to use this search term, and frankly I feel the neologism "Christianese" has a very distinct POV. That said, there are certainly words used specifically by certain religious sects. Why not merge that information to articles (or sub-articles?) about those particular religions?Jacqui^★ 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think it's a slur on Christians, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the word is itself Christianese: it arose among evangelicals who feared their proselytizing was ineffective because they "speak a different language" from the people they're talking to. Anyway, the titles of many articles--the names of advocacy organizations and so on--express a PoV. DanB DanD 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wryspy, sources notwithstanding. It's a neologism. Gazpacho 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article needs to die for our sins. --Xrblsnggt 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Think about this as if this were a language. Chinese, a language of several dialects in China, has an article that redirects to the elements of that culture, the people, etc. It does not simply list words and meanings. Yet, this is worse because it defines english words, and english words that already have articles in a Christian category. C56C 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good solid article, but lose the lexicon. -- Visviva 10:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. "Christianese" is used most often in a POV sense or a humorous one, but the article is (apparently) broader. Something like List of Christian terminology or List of words and phrases in Christianity.--Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - needs work and closer sourcing but definitely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism, and a couple books do not convince me that it's a widely used one. Isomorphic 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ISNOT a lexicon. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is an example[5] from the Church Marketing Sucks blog. It's more than a neologism. The entry needs a clean up/destubbing, but it belongs in Wikipedia and with the name Christianese. Carter 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (reitterating previous vote to Keep)
• Keep This article isn't limited to a lexicon, it explains the cultural contexts as well. Borisblue 00:32, 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 nomination withdrawn - keep. Kimchi.sg 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xcellent

Stub, NN thoroughbred TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Does not look like the horse won anything major... deletion is probably the best option —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you know? If you don't know the horse, don't comment. Wallie 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Once the horse wins a couple of major titles and gets some real coverage, then perhaps an article would be appropriate. — NMChico24 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — As a kiwi I can confirm this is nn - Glen 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In this case, Deleting is best option because this doesn't look like horses won the anything major. Daniel's page ☎ 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Glen. —Khoikhoi 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – it came third; I thought horse-racing was a first-or-nothing sport? Thus, non-notable. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Horse vanity. StuffOfInterest 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep New Zealand Famous horse. Comment: There is a japanese article (エクセレント) on this subject.--Galopin 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete far too local in scope, and non-notable even within its community. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The horse IS notable within its community. Wallie 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Let me address some of the above opinions advocating for deletion.

• “Non-notable” and “not won anything major”: Xcellent is the winner of the New Zealand Derby, which is New Zealand's most prestigious three year old race. The horse is notable for this alone, and deserving of an article. But the horse has also won the Kelt Capital Stakes which is New Zealand's richest thoroughbred horse race. And the horse has won a total of four Group 1 races from just 9 races contested.

I wonder if the horse had been a Kentucky Derby or Epsom Derby winner if it would be up for deletion. I think not.

• User:Riana_dzasta “it came third” - It ran third in the 2005 Melbourne Cup behind Makybe Diva – which was the only horse in its 125 year history to win THREE Melbourne Cups, and is one of Australia’s greatest ever staying mares.
• User:Glenn – you may be a kiwi, but you are sadly lacking in your knowledge of New Zealand thoroughbred racing.
• User:Galopin who is a Japanese wikipedian and a very knowledgeable horse racing contributor recognises Xcellent as a notable New Zealand racehorse.

I wonder if any of the people calling for deletion bothered to Google “horse Xcellent”. If they did they would have got 33,000 hits. Not-Notable? The horse certainly was the subject of a enormous interest from the Australian racing public when it crossed the Tasman Sea for the 2005 Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival.

I small number of wikipedians are making great efforts to increase the number of articles on thoroughbred racing around the world and their efforts will not be helped if we have to constantly defend articles on our chosen subject. The article is a stub, and needs expanding, but I strongly believe that it should not be deleted. - Cuddy Wifter 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -gadfium 08:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Cuddy Wifter. --Kusunose 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw nom I am not a kiwi, and I did not know that it won some prestigious races for its country. I now want to keep the article. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who would want to delete this anyway? The horse is well known internationally. Probably the same person who wanted to delete the article All Blacks. Why not go ahead and delete Dancing Brave and Ruffian while you're about it. Wallie 20:05, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maralyn Ramsay, Countess of Dalhousie

subject is the wife of the Earl of Dalhousie and approximately 690th in line to the British throne, and possibly something in the Imperial Russian house ;-). Ohconfucius 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ghits almost entirely pull Wikipedia and mirrors. Has this person actually done anything notable besides being born/married into incredibly diluted royalty? — NMChico24 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but I think King Ralph was higher in the succession line. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to see more references, but aside from that, I believe that the noble title automatically infers notability. Being within the top thousand of the royal class (pardon the pun) counts.  ;) --Elonka 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as WP:NOT Burke's Peerage; Elonka's rationale leaves me unconvinced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If the decision is to delete, my recommendation is that the information at least be merged into James Hubert Ramsay, 17th Earl of Dalhousie, or the previous Earl, Simon Ramsay, 16th Earl of Dalhousie, since it appears that there is already precedent to have a bio on each of the Earls, per Earl of Dalhousie (even if their wives are not seen worthy of bios). However, I still believe that Maralyn Ramsay satisfies the notability requirement on her own because of her other blood connections (including being in line to the throne by her own right, not just that of her husband). This may even be a case where the wife is more notable than the husband, though I'll admit that I'm not currently conversant enough on the details of these two individuals to make that determination myself (except it is telling that a Wikipedia article on the wife appeared before an article on the husband). --Elonka 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is information given here which is potentially useful to the reader who comes across the entry. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that we have generally considered Irish peers since 1801 and Scottish peers between 1707 and 1958 as automatically notable, despite the fact that, like today's hereditary peers, they only served in the house of lords if they were elected as representative peers. john k 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I feel that peeresses are fair game, especially when combined with two peeress cousins and a spot in the line of succession to the British throne, as well as descent from the Russian Imperial Family. There are a few very notable connections with this lady. Charles 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Charles (above). The page may be of interest to someone. JRawle (Talk) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A peeress is certainly more noteworthy than a minor cadet member of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, e.g. Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who survived an AfD last month. Noel S McFerran 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, yes someone may be interested in her, but there's no indication that she's done anything but marry and procreate -- something that several billion other people have done -- the fact that she is distantly related to some famous people does not make her notable. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep., I think. I think any peer or peeress has generally been considered to qualify as a priori notable. I'm not sure that being descended from the Electress Sophia makes you notable on its own, although there really aren't that many such people - a few thousand, perhaps? john k 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A peeress is notable. Just because nobles and geneology is not interesting to some people does not mean other people are interested in it as well. Morhange 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an as-yet-uncreated article about her husband. Ardric47 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a Ramsay, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for an individual page; therefore, I suggest retaining the information currently provided and merging that information into an appropriate article. Adraeus 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, at all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hey she's even closer to the throne - 660th now :-) If her title had been in her own right that would be fine but she has it as the wife of a peer and nothing seemingly achieved to make her notable in her own right. BlueValour 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - she seems to present at Clan events such as Games etc. and further research might find her as a patron of an organisation(?) Craigy (talk) 21:19, 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. Sango123 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a Teen Year

Previously prod'ed and deleted uncontested, but recreated, which requires a full AFD. Basically, an allegedly planned series on Disney, with no sources except an unverified TV rumor site entry [6], created by the same author. Google comes up with nothing except that site and Wikipedia. May or may not be a total hoax, but certainly unverifiable. Author has been involved in a number of such unverifiable articles in the past. Fan-1967 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball — NMChico24 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, and frankly, I'm getting sick of all these Disney Channel crystal ball articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• We AFD'ed and prod'ed a whole bunch of these back in July, as well as some others from the same author that were more obvious hoaxes. Recreating this one may have been author's way of sticking his foot back in the water to see if he could get away with it. Fan-1967 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. -- cmh 05:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Macktheknifeau 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- The Anome 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 13:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . It has already aired. http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12425 --Tess Tickle 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• That entry shows as having been created on that site by a user named "MCcoupe7", while this article was created by User:MCcoupe7. And a check of the schedule shows no such program aired last night. Gee, what a surprise! Fan-1967 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete crystal balling in its current state, and provides no useful info. If someone chooses to recreate it with useful and up-to-date content, they may. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ballin'. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This Bitch Jtervin 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. It is too bad we haven't hard coded some way to require base references before accepting a new article. RFerreira 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't necessarily help, in a case like this, where another site allows unverified information, and then an article here cites that other hoax entry as a source. Even TV.com and IMDB have been known to have hoax info. Fan-1967 21:55, 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. Sango123 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devilball

Non-notable, very few ghits (except WP mirrors). WP is not for things made up in one school (or vacation) day. Article was de-prod'd with no edit summary by Devilball (talk • contribs • count) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity and something made up on vacation one day. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Macktheknifeau 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Non-notable, and it fails something made up on vacation one day. Daniel's page ☎ 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ...per all of the above. StuffOfInterest 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. NawlinWiki 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "Article was de-prod'd with no edit summary" is not a valid ground for deletion. Removal of prod tag merely signifies that the deletion is contested and it must be put up for a vote. Rohirok 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, I am aware of that. However, I have also seen it noted in many nominations whether or not there was a prod and if it had been contested, and it was, so I included the info to save other editors the time of checking the article history. I believe the other reasons I listed were quite valid. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, as much as I hate that "made up in school one day" saying. It sounds lame. RFerreira 21:33, 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 all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulf Bauscher, Berthold Bauscher, Franka Bauscher, Lorenz Bauscher

the subject's entry in wiki is by virtue of his being approx 128th in line to the British throne as a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Not other claim to notability. I also nominate his younger brother, Berthold Bauscher, and Berthold's children Franka and Lorenz Bauscher Ohconfucius 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All Is it really necessary for this site to chronicle the geneology for every person with the slightest hint of royal blood? A recently reported study indicates that the common ancestor for every person currently on the planet probably lived less than 3,000 years ago. So we might just as well chronicle the royal lineage of everyone. — NMChico24 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the lot, as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — All of them - Being born is not notable. Having an important ancestor is not. Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless they have done something notable, they should probably exist as a note in a line of succession article. StuffOfInterest 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Verifiable. In Wikipedia's fashion of thoroughness, we could as well have articles on the first 200/250 people in line for the British throne. --Thunderhead 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Changed my opinion to merge into a single article for all people in the line of succession that details more how and why they're in that line. That would handle the relevant information in a better way than separate articles. --Thunderhead 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - Per NawlinWiki. Someone may come searching for information and it wouldn't hurt to lead them to the list. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Peripitus. WP:NOT the Almanach de Gotha and not a genealogical database. These don't fail WP:BIO, they don't even bother trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We have the list Line of succession to the British Throne, not every entry on every list deserves an article; that's often why we have lists. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- being in the line of succession to the throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unknown, even in Germany. °ڊ° Alexander 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete creating a redirect is asking for somebody to re-create the article. Claims that somebody is in the line of succession to the British throne beyond the first 39 places on the British monarchy website are not verifiable and original research. Is there any evidence that this person is a Protestant, which they have to be to be in the line of succession? PatGallacher 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne per NawlinWiki. Anything past the 100 mark is just ridiculous unless they have some achievements outside of being in line to the throne. RFerreira 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect, verifiable but it seems that this information would be best handled in a single article. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - no nobility and no notability. BlueValour 04:06, 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. Sango123 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SasuNaru

Naruto fancruft. Articles about any fan pairing, yaoi or not, really do not belong on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I could have sworn I redirected this once upon a time. Then again, I think the one I did had an X and was written terribly. In either case, how is this in any way notable, relevant, or the least bit worth mentioning? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No. Just... no. And here's me thinking I'd never use the term 'fancruft'. Shiroi Hane 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Head, meet desk. Fanfiction/fan-pairings/fan-anything that isn't noteworthy doesn't belong here.--Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fan Slash fiction pairing is not notable enough. ColourBurst 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crufty. Sorry, Shiroi Hane! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, slashfanficruft. If I had to cite a policy, I'd say... WP:V and WP:OR? --Kinu ^t/_c 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to a Naruto community article or some sort. If one does not exist, delete per lack of context. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fanficcruft. I think this pairing is quite popular amongst a certain sort of fan, but I agree with the nom. If anyone can find anything vaguely resembling a WP:RS, trim and merge to a suitable Naruto-related article instead (if one can be found). - makomk 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This entry makes my heart bleed in numerous ways. _dk 10:37, 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. Sango123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My First MUN

Article was prodded and deleted 17 July but recreated. Accordingly, it's a contested prod. The subject of the article is a non-notable student event, a regional Model United Nations held in Northern Virginia as a warm-up before other Model UNs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic.--Peta 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable event. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. I have participated in a dozen of these things; I'm not going to create articles on all them. Or am I? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too low level. StuffOfInterest 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a list of every non-notable regional student competition. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A university-hosted, nationwide, annual MUN would be notable. An MFMUN is just a practice. I've done 'em before. --M@rēino 23:00, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of TNA X Division Champions by age

Originally tagged as a speedy, but this isn't quite a candidate. It is however, quite non-notable. – ClockworkSoul 02:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This information can already be found in the parent article. It seems unnecessary to have an article sorting the title holders by age. — NMChico24 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is interesting, and this type of list exists for other titles as well. TJ Spyke 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Haha, TNA. I'm sorry... Delete per NMChico24. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Also protect the page (if it does get deleted). I remember seeing this page before August 2 (when it was started), and it got deleted then too. RobJ1981 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete other wrestling pages don't have this and only the oldest/youngest parts really matter. --- Lid 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Edit: actually some other pages do have this, though I don't see why. --- Lid 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't seem that notable to me, but if there are other lists like this then post links and I might change my vote, though I think I agree with Lid that only the oldest/youngest are really relevant (and that is on the title's entry, presumably) -- Davetron5000 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of WWE world champions by age and List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions by age. TJ Spyke 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are also scheduled for deletion. Wouldn't it be simpler to just put a birthdate or age column in the table on the championship's entry ypage? -- Davetron5000 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it redunant? This is the only page where all the champions are listed rather than just the oldest and youngest. TJ Spyke 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think all the age articles should be removed. What's the point of useless trivia? I can understand list of champions by length, because that's somewhat notable.. But age? Give me a break. What's next, champions by height? weight? It's redundant because there is lists of champions already, and there doesn't need to be a near identical list (with the exception of some small detail like age). RobJ1981 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? It's a solid categorisation. Kingfisherswift 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. BlueValour 04:08, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riley Mason

Information supplied (which isn't much) is inaccutate Throw 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete although I must say I got a chuckle out of the phrase "She is reputable for her anal" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fails CSD:A7. Outside of CSD, fails WP:BIO. — NMChico24 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:27, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellerive Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school. Editor who removed prod cited WP:SCHOOLS—which includes a list of criteria to establish a school's importance, none of which are asserted in this article. Accordingly, delete as non-notable organization. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, important part of education in its local community, no need to betray users who wish to find out about it. Kappa 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a phonebook." There's nothing in this article right now beyond a directory listing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Kappa needs to be reminded of the arguments against schools. Gazpacho 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN Elementary School in a Big City. --Corporal Punishment 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Another school undistinguishable from hundreds of others... Valrith 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Die mboverload@ 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Opabinia regalis 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NN I only got 138 hits on MSN... which had more then google. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Here we go again with the school thing. Does anyone remember going to their 15th elementary school reunion? — NMChico24 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NMChico24. No content, and nothing to assert the school's notability per WP:SCHOOLS (yes, I know it's proposed). Wikipedia is not a directory. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• These break my ♥, but delete per nom. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valuable topic. Prodding schools when they are known to be controversial is intolerable misconduct. Piccadilly 10:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of any notability. And I doubt if anyone is going to feel betrayed. Prodding schools may be fairly pointless but it's not misconduct. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable school. Viridae^Talk 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, i'll expand it. Carmen Chamelion 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parkway School District. — RJH (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs explanding. Dev920 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• While schools are notable, this one doesn't have much said about it here, so why not merge and redirect any missing information to Parkway School District? Jacqui^★ 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oy gavault, delete delete delete! -- Kicking222 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parkway SD. NN school. --Eivind^t@c 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definately nn. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If there are any school articles that should be deleted, it's articles like this. Articles like this, in the form of "Springfield Elementary is an elementary school in Springfield", serve no purpose and are almost totally uninformative. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete by WP:SCHOOLS , school has to be a post-secondary school. --Ageo020 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep this is another article which should be expanded rather than deleted. Silensor 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. GBYork 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as article is only a directory entry plus links to external sites, and WP:NOT policy requires us not to be a directory nor a repository of weblinks. GRBerry 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please schools are important it needs expanding not erasing Yuckfoo 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So expand it then! Carmen above tried - doen't look like she had much success. I suspect that's because there's not much to say. Dlyons493 Talk 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of verifiable information available about this school, please feel free to assist me in my expansion of this article. Silensor 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment big improvement, well done! I still wouldn't keep it myself, but it's good to see someone actually expanding it rather than voting keep and doing nothing :-). Dlyons493 Talk

It's irresponsible to encourage people waste their time expanding articles when the topic is allegedly "non-notable". Kappa 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - verifiable and notable. --Myles Long 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable school. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Notable school recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Bahn Mi 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.  ALKIVAR™ 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the ongoing guideline discussion at WP:SCHOOL, notability of the school is verifiably conveyed. Yamaguchi先生 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets content policies. Notable per last 500 discussions of the question. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is not quite yet 50 years old, but it does meet the qualifications 1 and 3 of WP:SCHOOL with multiple non-trivial works covering the subject and significant awards and commendations. Give the horse a rest, its been beaten enough. RFerreira 21:42, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph E. O'Doherty

• Delete: Article does not assert the importance of the individual, in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only listed as author low on the list on a couple of articles. Does not seem to have individually done anything noteworthy. Leuko 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Peta 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting research, but seems to be of little note. Top ghits include wikipedia mirrors. — NMChico24 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect into a related article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — {{db-bio}} - Glen 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Credema 06:23, 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 Speedy Delete by ClockworkSoul as copyvio. — NMChico24 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dingmans Campground

Originally posted as a speedy because "not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I tend to agree, but that's not a speedy. – ClockworkSoul 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: With the exception of the descriptions of each campsite, the rest of the article is a copyvio from http://www.dingmanscampground.com/ ... — ERcheck (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Whoops, when I put {{delete}}, I thought it was for a deletion proposal. Yea, thanks for the fix Clockworksoul. Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have tagged it as copyvio and listed it there. Daniel Case 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable spam. Leuko 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I will speedy as a copyvio. – ClockworkSoul 04:27, 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 speedy deleted by User:Neutrality  -- kenb215 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nail the casket shut

nn company, first person, advertising. Was PRODded. As I was about to add a prod2 to it, I got an edit conflict as the article's creator removed the PROD. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prod'er. Article is a first person account of trying to start the company, which is not doing well. Nowhere close to WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 03:03, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Luise Prinzessin von Preussen

former Prussian princess without dynastic rights and 144th in line to the British throne Ohconfucius 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect back to the list.--Peta 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Please see my comments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher — NMChico24 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tenth in line is the furthest you can be from the throne to be counted as notable, when that is the only argument, according to Wiki rules. J Milburn 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is no such rule. There isn't (at least three days ago) even such a guideline. WilyD 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Perhaps redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne. StuffOfInterest 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per NawlinkWiki.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per NawlinWiki. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect as WP:NOT a genealogical database, the Almanach de Gotha or Succession to the British Throne for Complete Idiots. Fails WP:BIO. Note that the Royal Family's website stops at 39th. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Germany is a democracy; Prussia no longer exists as a political entity, and Vicky is not notable for anything else in her existence. Carlossuarez46 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no notable achievemants. BlueValour 04:10, 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 all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ileana Snyder, Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder

subject is 105th in line to the British throne, no other appernt claims to notability. I also nominate her children Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder Ohconfucius 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect them all to Line of succession to the British Throne.--Peta 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Non-notable. Please see my comments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher. — NMChico24 04:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody comes up with another claim to notability. RedRollerskate 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete or redirect as mentioned above. If they do something, then they deserve an article. StuffOfInterest 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per NawlinkWiki.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to Line of succession to the British throne, no claim of notability. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as previous, if 39th is far as Brenda's website goes (here) why should we go further ? WP:NOT a genealogy database or Burke's Peerage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the earlier batches of pseudo-distant-royal-ish-folks. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and everyone beyond 10th in line except where they are notable in their own right. BlueValour 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary; in the interest of completeness there is no reason to delete these articles, they are doing no harm. I find them quite interesting. Jdcooper 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Nawlin, and is her name really Constanza Snyder Ohconfucius? ~ trialsanderrors 00:53, 23 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 06:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean Online

A game that doesn't exist yet. The website just redirects to Disney's Pirates website, which is mostly advertising for the movie. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The website clearly directs to the MMORPG page and not the movie. The game is in development and just because it isn't released to the public does not mean it doesn't exist. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with no prejudice against writing an article when the game does exist. No beta, no newsletter, no notability as yet. -- nae'blis 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Personally, I'd say an official website, some screenshots, news and so on deems it to be notable at the least. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Newsletter updates HAVE been published, including one this month. The article was incorrect in that regard, I updated it. -- Vandelay 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Abstain. - the article's undergone some improvements in sourcing, but I still think it's preliminary. Not enough to block a speedy keep though, if Zoe withdraws. -- nae'blis 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is/will be an official game release related to a blockbuster movie franchise. Certainly notable, even if unreleased. Rohirok 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is legit. I had already heard about the game. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Crystalballism doesn't apply to a game that's almost certainly going to be released, and has verifiable sources. ColourBurst 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you look at the crystal ball policy, this clearly crosses the threshold into keepability. Information is well-sourced from official sources and/or press, and it would be notable once released. Captainktainer * Talk 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well sources, and it is a game to be released. Havok (T/C/c) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has an entire (and fairly large) category of articles devoted to "Computer and video games under development". It has a similarly large category called "2007 computer and video games". (Refer to the bottom of the article to see the links). This deserves to stay as much as any of the others in those categories. -- Vandelay 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Far enough along that it will happen and isn't just speculation. StuffOfInterest 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep as per above. Dev920 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Ariadoss 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of useful content, here. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:SNOW? --PresN 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but we could speedy if Zoe withdraws and nae'blis comes around. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major product, sufficiently notable, even pre-release. --Elonka 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Vandelay. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Windows Vista doesn't exist yet in the same way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ColourBurst and many others. And yes, WP:SNOW does apply. However, I can't close it now. 1ne 05:54, 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. Sango123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portable air conditioner

Contended merge to Air conditioning where the information in the article is already present. Current article is a duplicate, has an unencyclopedic tone and is an unnecessary fork. Delete --Peta 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. As pretty much the exact same info is in the the parent article, Delete. Leuko 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around.--AAAAA 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no compelling reason to merge anything here. From the Department of Redundancy Department. — NMChico24 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is not a dictionary of every possible item on earth.Wryspy 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around. I believe Portable ir onditioners are a special type of air conditioners that deserve their own article.--AAAAA 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Merge is an inappropriate suggestion - the airconditioner article is already too long. WilyD 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant with Air conditioner; not a likely search term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant StuffOfInterest 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per redundancy. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:14, 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 Redirect all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathrine Ferner Johansen, Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen

subject is approx 76th in line to the British throne and also distant pretender to the Norwegian throne. I also nominate for deletion the pages of her children Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen. No apparent notability outside their distant claims to the throne(s). Ohconfucius 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Delete — Almost no hits in search engines, but if anyone can show an ounce of notability I'm opening to changing my vote mboverload@ 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tangential royalty is not notable in and of itself. Delete the kids too. Wait, that sounds kind of sinister. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All See comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher — NMChico24 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I keep having to stop myself writing Off with their heads Dlyons493 Talk 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, so what if they are in the line of succession to the British throne, they are mainly non-notable people. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Enough already! Perhaps this should have been done as one big AfD. Maybe leave a redirect behind ot the line of succession article but even that doesn't seem worth the effort. StuffOfInterest 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I would Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne. 76th in line is no claim to notability. But redirect wouldn't hurt. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Aksi_great. The figures have no other claims of notability, and redirects are cheap. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect but to Princess Astrid of Norway, their links to the Norwegian throne is closer then to the British. --Eivind^t@c 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Princess Astrid of Norway, nearest notable family member is where they belong. Content will need to be merged in (ie, a whole line). LinaMishima 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Astrotrain 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as previous, if 39th is far as Brenda's website goes (here) why should we go further ? WP:NOT a genealogy database or Burke's Peerage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the earlier batches of pseudo-distant-royal-ish-folks. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge the children into Cathrine's article. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cathy; Delete Maddy and Seb - Cathy is close enough to the Norwegian throne. Theothers are not. BlueValour 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Aski. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per LinaMishima. --Angelbo 04:38, 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 all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth Ferner Beckman, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, Benedikte Ferner

subject is approx 80th in line to the british throne and something in the Norwegian house. I also nominate for deletion the page on her son, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, and als o that of her sister Benedikte Ferner. Ohconfucius 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all distant relationship to royalty is not notable. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All I think we need to combine all these silly distant relatives of distant relatives of distant relatives of the British throne articles into one gigantoid AFD and purge the lot. — NMChico24 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the problem with having one big AfD is that there's someone in the list that some editor thinks is vaguely notable and the whole discussion gets so complex that no concensus can be reached. Dlyons493 Talk 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, they are not famous or something. Besides, they are not in the first 40 on the line of succession to the British throne. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ran out of words from all of the above royalty nominations. StuffOfInterest 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I would Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - Am getting mildly irritated with so many AfDs on the same thing. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to Princess Astrid of Norway per comments made on the other AfDs on this subject. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Princess Astrid of Norway per my comment in the above AfD. --Eivind^t@c 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Princess Astrid of Norway, where family members of notable people belong LinaMishima 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as previous, if 39th is far as Brenda's website goes (here) why should we go further ? WP:NOT a genealogy database or Burke's Peerage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the earlier batches of pseudo-distant-royal-ish-folks. Carlossuarez46 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Benedikte Ferner. Sometimes royals are notable in their own right. In this case, Benedikte Ferner owns an upmarket fashion boutique, also named Benedikte Ferner. http://www.benedikteferner.no/ The Norwegian article at no:Benedikte Ferner has additional information about her that I can't read.

She got married and divorced and is now living with Aage Hvinden. She ran a restaurant for a couple of years. Doesn't add up to notability IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk

• Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge Benjamin into Elisabeth's article. Ardric47 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Liz; Delete Ben and Bene - Liz is close enough to the Norwegian throne. The others are not. BlueValour 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as royals. Nickieee 07:36, 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 speedy delete as vandalism by creator with intent to deceive. Kimchi.sg 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night Of A 1000 Cats: Been Alive

More hoaxing by the author of Blanca Murillo. There is nothing to indicate that any such movie exists. The title itself is nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of credible sources. Leuko 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total lack of sources. There was a 1972 Mexican horror movie ([7]) released in English as Night Of A 1000 Cats (I've reverted that article to verifiable information only). No plans seem to exist for any remake or sequel to the remake. Fan-1967 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no WP:RS indicating that this project exists. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'nother unreferenced crystal ball article — NMChico24 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:53, 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. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaxial warp drive

Was originally tagged as a speedy, but doesn't fit criteria. Original reason was patent nonsense (which it isn't), but it does look like some rather obscure Trekcruft. Notability? – ClockworkSoul 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Coaxial_warp_drive. -- nae'blis 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete copy-vio Leuko 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as Memory-Alpha content is not GFDL-friendly. Alternatively, delete as Trekcruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a recent copyvio. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd support a speedy delete, but technically A8 covers commercial content (do Google ad banners count?). It was featured in a _single episode_ of Voyager, however, so it'd still be deleted. ColourBurst 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• However, it looks like A8 was designed with WP:SNOW in mind, so I'll tag it anyway. ColourBurst 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Speedy Delete Duality between fancruft and copyvio as memory-alpha is creative commons and not GFDL. --Kevin_b_er 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Macktheknifeau 05:55, 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 as vandalism - even the creator said it on the talk page: "the imdb doesnt know anything". Kimchi.sg 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hernandez

imdb never heard of this 13 year old actor, nor of any of the movies he is supposedly in or scheduled to be in. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. Fan-1967 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Leuko 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:COJONES. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill_Jensen

Article is a Vanity Page. Does not contain noteworthy information for inclusion in an encyclopedia Brad 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:VAIN Leuko 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, "aspiring filmmaker" generally indicates WP:VANITY and failure of WP:BIO due to lack of WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete per nom. ShaunES 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity StuffOfInterest 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:08, 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 as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etras e Monali'sa

More of the hoaxing by the editor of Brother & Sister and Blanca Murillo and Martin Hernandez. imdb never heard of this movie. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Egregious hoax. The idea of a movie by Luc Besson not being on IMDB is ludicrous. Author needs to be blocked. Fan-1967 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and reprimand hoaxer per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as a hoax, possibly speedy as vandalism. Block the author. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:04, 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 as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanca Murillo, Brother & Sister

There is no such actress listed at imdb, nor is the supposed movie she stars in listed. The article was written by an editor who has created several other hoaxish articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, no verifiability, suspected hoax. And check out that MS Paint-job "movie poster"... --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More hoaxes. Unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this hoax per nom. Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:04, 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 (no consensus). Not the easiest of decisions here with 12d/5k which is frequently sufficiently strong for consensus, but I have registered that there have been significant attempts at improving the article during the course of the discussion. One of the arguments presented (unverifiability) appears to have been countered and I gather that a Google search which someone referred to does give some independent media mentions, e.g. this one. I am uncertain about notability here, but I will call this a no consensus based on new evidence surfacing over the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starving Jesus

Originally tagged as a speedy for "patent nonsense", but it's not. It does, however, seem to be very difficult to verify. – ClockworkSoul 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable, crystal-ballism, take your pick. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Opabinia regalis, surely we'll be the first to write about it when something exciting happens to these reckless fellas. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, no we won't. Wikinews could, though. Uncle G 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    •  :p I was joking. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Searches actually turn up quite a bit regarding this one. Article does need some serious work. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am more than willing to take any advice I can get. Also, I am searching high and low for a good Wikkipedia Text Editor. Derek C 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Opabinia regalis. Rohirok 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with Opabinia regalis's gracious homework. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR. Lazybum 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Still seems like nonsense to me. KnightLago 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Opabinia regalis --Wildnox 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have now added more refrences, an ISBN number and fixed the xxxchurch wiki link. This is in fact a real book written by a popular ministry which has been featured on ABC News. ABC NEWS Story Derek Cormier 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn book with a "human interest" angle, very cute, very today, very yesterday tomorrow. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Derek Cormier's new refs. xxxchurch is well known enough for their book to be notable, at least in some Christian circles. Book is selling on Zambooie [[8]], perhaps it's an indie pub? It would explain why it isn't in as many references. SuperJerms 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn book BlueValour 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've just wikified the article, so its in better shape now, and I've tagged it for cleanup. With Derek's references, it can be considered notable enough, and there are other less referenced book articles out there. --Draicone ^(talk) 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question This article still needs some clean up, but after reading Wikipedia:Notability (books) I believe this article clearly meets those proposed guidlines. How do I get the tag removed?Derek Cormier 02:40, 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 speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Awards

Considering that this article was created by an editor with a history of creating fake movie articles, and that one of the winners {Martin Hernandez) apparently doesn't really exist, this entire article is suspect. Are there really such awards? No sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. Gave an award to a kid who doesn't exist for a movie that doesn't exist. Fan-1967 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. Leuko 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, suspected WP:HOAX. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also check out the related Category:Mexican_award_winner; the valid articles that have been tagged with this category need to be edited accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like we've got them all cleaned out. Only award winner left in the category is Martin Hernandez. Fan-1967 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for a trifecta of hoaxery per Fan-1967. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete based on hoax history. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 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 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dromana Primary School

Non-notable school, no evidence of satisfying WP:SCHOOLS. Valrith 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - With almost no information in the article, it does not seem to satify WP:SCHOOLS Leuko 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Not even a link to the school's website. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for no content. Does not contain any assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete primary schools are not inherently notable. — NMChico24 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• </3 Delete, seems to have been written by a student who likes his school. Which is good. But not for Wikipedia. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Stop wasting time. The number of school articles blossomed regardless, so all you are achieving is to hobble wikipedia and enage in conflict for the sake of it. Piccadilly 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Assume good faith. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dromana is hardly notable let alone its primary school. Piccadilly precendent is not binding and since since schools consistently rarely show notability beyond being schools they will continue to come up in AFD. Viridae^Talk 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. No assertion of notability made, and no information here beyond what would be found in a directory listing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Dromana, Victoria. WP:SCHOOLS is still under discussion and so using it as a deletion criteria is absurd. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep crap article, but can be expanded. Dev920 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability, and I'm willing to bet none will ever be found. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge (for now) to Dromana, Victoria per RJH. Jacqui^★ 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Dromana, Victoria. Hasn't received any mentions in the media so difficult to expand. Capitalistroadster 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a directory entry and since this is a primary school I don't see this grow beyond this while at the same time citing reputable sources. -- Koffieyahoo 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep there is no reason this article cannot be expanded. Silensor 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above statement and per Piccadilly's statement above. GBYork 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a directory entry violating the WP:NOT policy against directory entries. GRBerry 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the fact that people say it can be expanded, but don't actually expand it, suggests to me that that there are no verifiable sources. If and when some are found, the article can be recreated. Dlyons493 Talk 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it just suggests that it isn't their obligation to do so. Millions of needed edits are not made for all sorts of reasons, including the amount of time that is wasted due to school deletionism. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is important to the community Yuckfoo 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.  ALKIVAR™ 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since the school was founded in 1861, we should be able to provide coverage. Failing that, merge into Dromana, Victoria. Yamaguchi先生 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom James68 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. 150 year old schools are of course notable. Bahn Mi 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets content policies. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep for a series of responses to notability concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge with Dromana, Victoria), should be sufficiently verifiable. For those who cited WP:SCHOOLS, they should note that (1) this school does meet the criteria since it's over 50 years old, (2) this is currently just a proposal, not a guideline or a criteria and (3) it doesn't mention any criteria under which articles should be deleted unless they don't meet Wikipedia's content policies, and no evidence has been presented that this school doesn't. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- verifiable stub. Allow for growth. - Longhair 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nandesuka 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable school. This is one of my semi-local schools, so I'm willing to help edit it. I just noticed that the principal information is incorrect. Ray Robertson is the current acting principal, Ray Hocking left last year. Going now to correct. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and established school. Also old enough to have plenty of potential for expansion so merge is not appropriate. Kappa 19:01, 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. Sango123 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Phillips

• Delete. Self-promotional (see creator's username and record company), debut album comes out this fall, not famous yet. We are not a promotional vehicle. -- nae'blis 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Artist's label created the page, yes. But, as far as the debut album coming out this fall, I didn't know that such promotional information is prohibited, and to prevent the page from being deleted, the info was changed. To counter your suggestion that including a listing of Cory Phillips is somehow inappropriate because he is not famous yet to your specification, phillips is a very popular live musician in Los Angeles. And what difference does it make whether or not there is a commercial music product for sale to validate him to you? Does participation in the capitalist system only validate a public figure on Wikipedia? I did not think so. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Participation in the "capitalist system" isn't strictly necessary, but the bar for inclusion for most people is much higher without a major label/produced well-selling record. See WP:MUSIC for some of the suggestions: was he featured in multiple non-trivial published works (such as LA papers, music trade magazines of record, etc)? Was he ever in a notable band prior to his current "supergroup" (or was anyone else)? Has he won a major music award or competition, and do you have proof as it is reported in the press? Is he the most prominent representative of a notable style of music, and has this been reported as such? You have options, and you have at least four days to make your case...thanks for trimming the article already of the promotional material, and welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, and as noted below, if his record takes off and he does become more famous this fall, it's intensely likely a fan will come and write an article for you! -- nae'blis 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Promo; WP:NOT a crystal ball ("Fates willing, the release will see success sufficient to garner the interest of a major label"). Daniel Case 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If that was an issue, it has been changed. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - self promotional, not notable. Leuko 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable to who? Cory Phillips and his nine-piece band are notable to a lot of people in Los Angeles who regularly pay money to see them perform. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • See nae'blis's response above. Notability is fairly well-defined here. Daniel Case 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, suspected WP:VANITY, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Point taken. Understand this to be the first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. It has been edited to include just the facts. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Real bands don't need a myspace profile mboverload@ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably not true; lots of "real" bands take advantage of MySpace's music-embedding features; "Itzkoff also observes that MySpace’s much-celebrated music section is heavily weighted in favor of record labels rather than breakthrough musicians" -- nae'blis 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — {{db-bio}} - Glen 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Promo. WP:NOT soapbox. Ohconfucius 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Harsh words, mboverload! I tend to agree... but then we have things like this. As for Mr Phillips, delete, promo, get out there and get famous(er), we'll write the article for you. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, vanity, and probably a few other reasons. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete .... for now... looking at the amount of cross-site self promotion, I expect an entry back in here fairly soon, once he/they've busted their butts on a national tour (probably the easiest way to meet WP:MUSIC while furthering one's career, or looked at from another perspective, the easiest way to destroy a band. :-) ) Good luck to Cory and Thermal! Ronabop 03:09, 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 speedy delete —Mets501 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Kid

I'm not even sure this Halo insult that has "just recently started to get popular" even deserves consideration as a transwiki. Daniel Case 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — The article practically admits it's a completely non-notable nelogism mboverload@ 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I don't even see how it's insulting. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, possible attempt to astroturf a protologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Leuko 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can we speedy delete this under WP:SNOW? ColourBurst 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — as nonsense - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. At the very least a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Speedy Delete as Patent nonsense, non-notable neologism. ShaunES 07:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy the damn thing, what a load of nonsense. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:50, 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. Sango123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Anderson

Doesn't get close to meeting WP:PORNBIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is Samantha 38G, the subject of another article that was deleted. I can't tell if this is a re-creation, but she still doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We delete these porn upstarts daily, don't we? Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although her 'incredibly massive breasts' might tip the balance in her favour. Or not. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete her article and that of her primary school. Dlyons493 Talk 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN StuffOfInterest 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:19, 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 delete. Sango123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namesake Entertainment

Delete - does not seem to be notable per WP:CORP, only hits in Google is company's own website, no independent mention. Leuko 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Delete. They're in the IMdB [9]. However, while we tend to accept any performer with IMdB credits, does merely being in the IMdB make a production company notable? Daniel Case 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:CORP, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The listing in IMDB is trivial, because all it does is list the movies which the company has been associated with. Also, that is one published work, where WP:CORP requires "multiple." Leuko 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question answered; changing my vote. Daniel Case 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know the above user already changed his vote, but I simply wanted to point out that IMDb is in no way a measure of significance, and that people are not even remotely guaranteed they have a WP article because they have an IMDb entry. I have an entry (for donating to The 1 Second Film)), while a friend of mine starred in an actual movie. Neither of us has a WP page, nor do either of us (but especially not me) deserve them... nor do people who played corpses on CSI or spoke one line in a film. -- Kicking222 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and subsequent information. Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above; no reliable sources indicating that this production house meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above... nn company producing nn films. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:20, 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 by Neutrality, [10].--Kchase T 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bikini Round-Up

This article has seen it all: speedy deletion declined, and is a contested prod. It's a one sentence article about a non-notable porn film with no citations whatsoever. MER-C 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's a non-notable HBO TV movie. TJ Spyke 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable TV movie...and there is no "M" rating for TV shows or movies. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:42, 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 this and Zentriert ins Antlitz (linked from this article, but not in the nomination for some reason) as CSD A7 - no assertion of band's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.M.I.T.R

Patent nonsense, no context. Speedy delete A1 TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete not as patent nonsense, but as a content/context-less article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — {{db-nonsense}} - Glen 05:44, 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 — ERcheck (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My book

This could be the title of so many pages that end up here. This one in particular cannot be an encyclopedic article. Ever. Daniel Case 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's basically just a blank page. TJ Spyke 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete page is empty, article name has nothing to do with content and, can not be salvaged. -- Gogo Dodo 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Original research from a confused newcomer. Rohirok 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as empty or possible G4. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 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 to Marine Park possible. W.marsh 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marine Park Race Attack

Minor news item from 2005 of no lasting significance, delete --Peta 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We're not wikinews, and this doesn't seem like an event that, at this moment, will hold bearing on the future. Nom's wording of 'no lasting signifigance' is a good way to put it, as right now it doesn't hold major signifigance. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These things have a way of resurfacing by way of people on the losing side trying to get even later. The article serves as a useful reminder of problems that won't go away. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – Q: can't articles like these be trimmed and merged into Ethnic violence? There must be more like this floating around. Just an idea. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Not sure where, but there must be another article which can host this single paragraph with a few reference links. StuffOfInterest 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is local news. Mention of the attack might be appropriate in an article dealing with race relations or crime in the region, but this doesn't merit its own article in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I hope someone improves the article.--Tess Tickle 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rohirok. We're not Wikinews. Mention the attack in some other article about the region, but it doesn't need its own. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local news of no encycloepdic or historical significance. GRBerry 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Marine Park. -- Visviva 02:21, 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. Yanksox 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Les Tapies

Previous version was a lengthy copyvio and tagged as such, so the author removed the copyrighted text (good) and turned the article into a nanostub about an unspecified "program" program with no distinguishable notability. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm fuzzy on if a 'program' at a school can qualify for speedy delete on A7, but it doesn't appear to be all that great anyways, nor does it appear to assert its signifigance or importance. What's special about it? It appears to be an international summer program, one of probably many around the world. --Kevin_b_er 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is better now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable school program. Eusebeus 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable and of no interest. - Corporal Tunnel 14:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete almost speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 00:56, 23 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. Sango123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great White North Hamburger

This is unverifiable (WP:V). There are no sources cited and there are zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia for "Great White North Hamburger". Sandstein 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:NFT (eh?) — NMChico24 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if anything can possibly be cited, then this is just a hamburger served at a golf club. WP:NOT the menu for every location on the planet. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with homemade dill sauce. WilyD 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, take off of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious, non-notable recipe. Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for a non-notable burger. It's probably good, but that's not relevant here. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. —Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but move to Wikibooks cookbook as an alternate hamburger recipe. It does sound interesting, but not appropriate for here. Jzeitler 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, but I must say a hamburger sounds good right about now. RFerreira 21:34, 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. Prodego ^talk 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ModTheSims2

I love the site, I visit it often, and I've participated on the forums. However, it's does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia.

It fails two important guidelines. WP:WEB and WP:VAIN The site was created and heavily edited by the site creator who goes by the nickname Delphi. The site was featured in two mass-media publication, however, the seem part of the excluded content of WEB #1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The site also has a high Alexa rank. However, web ranking is not a criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia and shouldn't be considered. Also, a detailed search query of google shows that 90,000+ of the unique google hits belong to the page itself. [11]. A vanilla search of the site's name reveals that there are only 635 unique web entries.

The article is also somewhat of a link farm that may also be a violation of WP:EL.

It's a very good resource and should be referenced in the main Sims2 article. So, I say Delete, redirect to The Sims 2, and include in external links. --Kunzite 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I'm not sure about this one; it doesn't smell like vanity to me, despite getting created/edited by the site creator and even if it was, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is".

On the WEB thing... I'm not sure. ShaunES 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep does not fail WP:V and as for WP:VAIN it should be re-written some, but definitely not deleted. Havok (T/C/c) 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've clean up some of the article, removed some elements that would read as vanity or advertisments. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• How exactly does it pass WP:V? How does it pass WP:WEB? "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Where are the reliable third party sources? The two sources given are "Trivial coverage...that simply report the internet address... [or contain] a brief summar[ies] of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses"? --Kunzite 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would think that since it has been featured on G4TV's Attack of the Show and in Rolling Stone Magazine it is good enough. Maybe not for you, but it's still a third party reference of notability of the site. And in no place does it say in the policy about how it should be featured by the third party. When said sources recognize it, it is automatically notable. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both of those are credible, and are reputable. Havok (T/C/c) 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• First off, the article doesn't even cite the sources, it just mentions that the site was mentioned in these publications. Secondly, there's WP:WEB, which contains the guidelines on which sources are acceptable for web sites. Wikipedia is also not a web directory. --Kunzite 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the policy which you try to justify this articles deltion with says "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)." Which talks about what not to put in said article, this article is just as viable as Something Awful, Newgrounds and 4chan to give you a few. Havok (T/C/c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. WP:WEB is the standard. Modthesims2 does not pass it. I think out of the examples you have given, two are most likely notable. (They get multiple, seemingly, non-trivial hits when I do LexisNexis searches.) 4chan doesn't, it's pretty much noted on the talk page, and it really should be nominated it for deletion. Modthesims2 gets no LexisNexis hits. Please explain to me how the Rolling Stone is non-trivial. If it were a two-page spread on the site.. I'd give it to you, I'd withdraw the nomination. It's a one sentence line about movie characters that were popular at the time the article was made who happened to make an appearance on the site. How is that notable for a wikipedia article? I'll end with the quote from the 4chan talk page --Kunzite 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• They have still been mentioned on Attack of the Show. Which is more then can be said for other websites featured on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• The TV show is still just a trivial mention. This deletion is about modthesims2:not about all of the other websites around wikipedia that need to be removed or whatnot. There is a lot of clean-up work to be done at wikipedia. --Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

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.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

• Keep Attack of the Show + Rolling Stone = Notable. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I dug up the Rolling Stone quote: "With the Oscars fast approaching, Brokeback fever spreads to the Web: America's favorite cowboys get pixetated as character mods for the Sims 2 video game, (modthesims2.com)" This is not even about the site, it's about Brokeback Mountain. Totally trivial. --Kunzite 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'd rather keep a marginal than delete a notable. StuffOfInterest 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete\uninstall this article. The Rolling Stone mention was about a movie, and happened to mention the website address. No coverage of the actual website which is required to satisfy WP:WEB. I Tivo "Attack of the Show", and remember this episode. They mentioned this site in passing, it was not featured or given more that 30 seconds of air time. I have a computer mod that was mentioned on TechTV's (pre-G4) 'The Screen Savers' longer than that; and it was mentioned in various computer mod magazines...should that get an article as well? No. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you feel it's notable, and you can established that notability then go right ahead. The fact that Attack of the Show mentioned it, is good enough. I can give you a list of sites that havn't been talked about on AotS if you want. Meaning, it's notable. Havok (T/C/c) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. However, it would be nice if the Sims 2 article had a section listing the various modder sites such as this one, and describing the modder community in more detail. But in itself, this article subject is trivial to anyone who doesn't play the game.207.34.120.71 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep not a very good article, but not hopeless. Notable enough. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a good firm rewriting, but those references make it notable. --PresN 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you even reviewed the references? Could you explain to me how they meet WP:WEB? What makes those two references non trivial? --Kunzite 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per PresN. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, the above-mentioned sources make it notable enough. As said needs some cleanup to look less like an advertisement. --SevereTireDamage 13:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia. While it does not have the same physical limitations as a printed encyclopedia, it isn't the universal vault of all obscure fan knowledge. While MTS2 is certainly not obscure in the Simming community, I'm not sure it's something of benefit to the general reading public. In addition, when the article was created by the website owner and approx. 25% of the edits were made by him, with another 25% or so being made by editors whose only contributions are in this article (realizing, of course, that some of these are may have been made by people who have since registered), I do wonder about WP:VAIN. While this is somewhat to be expected of an article of this nature, the only main namespace article linking to this one (other than redirects) is the The Sims 2 article. As far as the Rolling Stones, etc., reference is concerned, I agree that a single off-handed mention does not constitute notability - it constitutes fortuitous coincidence. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there was any significant increase in the hit count for MTS2 immediately following this mention? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Even if it was created as WP:VAIN, I would say that that isn't a problem anymore. Even if it was mentioned in a sentence in Rolling Stones, it is better then most websites featured on Wikipedia. Also, it was linked to from Attack of the Show. Might have been for a brief moment, but again, it's more then most. Havok (T/C/c) 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do refer to the comment above: yes there are a lot of articles that need to be considered for deletion. However, this deletion is about MTS2: not the hundreds of other poorly-sourced, iffy articles on websites which need to be examined. "There are articles with more trivial sources than this one" is not a valid argument for keeping. Given the time and attention of dedicated editors and (hopefully) a new focus on quality over quantity by the wikipedia foundation, I hope they will be evaluated in due time and with due process. --Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• A line must be drawn; when a site has been mentioned in two very reliable sources, it deservs a mention. I myself am an inclusionist (but I am sure you are aware of that fact). If articles are deleted on the grounds that they are "poorly-sourced", "iffy articles" etc. and are just deleted without having the chance to be buildt upon and improved. It's going to be very hard to get anything up on WP. This site is huge, it has been mentioned, and it deserves an article, period. Havok (T/C/c) 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• It should be "hard" to "get stuff up" on wikipedia (i.e. there should be standards); especially when it's a fansite. Collocating and merging such things will not harm wikipedia. If the site's included in a link in the main Sims 2 article, there would be nothing lost. The problem is that you a mistaking two mentions of a URL in the mass media as "sources". Have you read the sentence in Rolling Stone that you're calling a source? It's not even about the site; it's about Brokeback Mountain. The TV "source" is equally trivial. Read WP:WEB which states the inclusion guidelines for media sources. You're also mistaken in your assertation that just because a "site is huge" that it deserves an article. A site's traffic does not matter. That's not mentioned anywhere in any inclusion guideline. --Kunzite 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• A single sentance in the magazine is concidered a trivial source. The article must be a full length feature on just the site, so the Rollingstone article has been voided as a source. What is next? One mention in passing (which since I have the show tivoed, I can tell you it was about the same coverage the Rollingstone article had) on a TV show. Not Multiple sources. One very shakey one and one that doesn't qualify per wikipedia's own policy. It fails a major wikipedia pillar...WP:V. It fails to follow the guideline of WP:WEB as well (multiple sources) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect per nom. The cited sources seem fairly trivial in their mention of the article's subject. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:52, 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. Sango123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swampass

(Contested prod) Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. — ERcheck (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism with little in the way of verifiability that I was able to track down. (I tagged this as a speedy, but the author removed the tag and commented, so I didn't bother redoing it.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Leuko 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFT. Ridiculous, unverifiable neologism. This same article has been speedied twice before under the name Swamp ass and twice again under Swamp Ass. Suggest page protection for all three articles should this AFD result in deletion. — NMChico24 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NMChico24... unverifiable neologism, probably made up you-know-where. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO. No transwiki here, I don't think it's for neologisms. Asshat, cited by author as an example, is actually only a redirection page to Asshole. ColourBurst 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, wiktionary will accept neologisms, however they still need to be verifiable. BS is still BS, no matter which project it's posted to. — NMChico24 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as before, crappy article. Gazpacho 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NMChico24 --Mr Stephen 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT policy. -- The Anome 12:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. StuffOfInterest 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, poorly written. Jaedza 06:20, 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 delete. Sango123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Burn

young australian actor who had a role in Home and Away, and who scored 52 Ghits with "Gary Burn" + actor. Prpopsd deletion per WP:NN Ohconfucius

• Delete nn. tv show sucks too. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete totally NN: the first legitimate Google hit on him is (guess what?) this WP article itself. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While a search of an Australia and New Zealand database comes up with plenty of hits for Gary Burn, there is little related to this actor. However, should his acting career continue, we can have an article when there is more verifiable information available. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As yet, non-notable. --Roisterer 16:12, 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 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declan O'Brien

• Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, no independent reviews of work, only 1 relevant GHit (IMDB listing) Leuko 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You can expand stubs and he's runs a company. Sinewaves23 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Sinewaves, and although the version marked with AfD before wasn't at all notable, it now has great deal of information to prove otherwise now. DrWho42 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep Dude's a film producer. Good enough for me. Dev920 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based upon the expansion of this article from stub to start. Yamaguchi先生 08:17, 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 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZilCorp

No evidence provided that this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines, delete. ---Peta

• Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Russian not registered company! Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Political Documentaries

Originally placed on CSD by User:Musaabdulrashid, but "This is an attempt to create a useless list of information that is notably displayed elseware" does not fit into any of the CSD categories, and so taking to AfD. I actually support this deletion as it'd probably be better off as a category. ColourBurst 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another endless list. Categories are much more appropriate for this sort of thing, especially given its scope. — NMChico24 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the person who nominated it for csd 15 minuets ago--Musaabdulrashid 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, listcruft, and improper title case is the icing on the cake. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prefer categories for this sort of thing. Mr Stephen 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - lists are much more useful than categories in a lot of ways, and Political documentary is an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists are inherantly bad. Any political documentary, even one made in one school day, could be listed in this article.--Musaabdulrashid 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIST would disagree, but it's probly the case that any featured list nominated here with "nn listcruft" would get deleted. WilyD 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as potentially infinite. Use the category instead. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this had meaningful criteria for inclusion, it would have promise. It actually has some content about the documentaries, making it more valuable than the category. However, with no criteria for inclusion, it is potentially infinite and listcruft. GRBerry 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That is, of course, not actually true. Entries still have to get past WP:V, so the potential is not infinite, nor is there any real potential for "listcruft". WP:LIST also covers reasons for having lists, which is more than just discussing the contents of the list. WilyD 15:41, 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 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff McIntosh

subject is not notable per vanity piece by non notable person WP:VAIN 56Ghits for "Geoff McIntosh" + binary. Article is suspected autobiography, as info is unverifiable (User:GeeMac per WP:V and WP:AUTO Ohconfucius 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - reads like an autobiography, not particularly notable. Leuko 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a resume host site. NawlinWiki 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. 11kowrom 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a public resume repository. Dsreyn 16:21, 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 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Vernon-Jackson

proposed deletion of entry for Local councillor for Portsmouth CC, former Deputy leader of West berks council and former candidate for European parliament for the South-east, for not passing the bar of notability. Ohconfucius 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, city officials tend not to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A coucil leader such as Gerald Vernon-Jackson has more power than an ordinary councillor, and is hence more notable. I added some references. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete According to point number two in WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is a city council member/leader. As a political figure, they do not hold a statewide/provincewide office. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The next point in WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Gerald Vernon-Jackson qualifies on this point. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The links given in the article don't cut it, unfortunately. The BBC article is not about him (it just quotes him), and the Yahoo link seems to be minutes of council proceedings, which aren't press coverage. If you eliminate all that, you're left with local news, which is not "significant press coverage". --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bschott. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 04:55, 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 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convertec Business Solutions

Text makes no assertion of company's importance. Company website doesn't even work. User has only posted links and articles related to company. Garrepi 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - WP:CSD A7? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, no evidence that subject meets WP:CORP. A whopping 23 Google hits, none of which are reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Dull but verifiable. I added some external links. And the company's web site works properly now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dont see how this meets WP:CORP. Company website is the place to go for information - WP is not a business directory. Things need to be put into context. Dlyons493 Talk/FONT> 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. Leuko 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per above. GBYork 13:16, 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 and redirect to Coining. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coiner

Delete per WP:NEO Brian G (Talk) 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• So it isn't a word? Remove it from Wikipedia. EVERYWHERE. Zanadark 06:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism about creating more nn neologisms... ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• We can't deny the existence of a word that is used throughout human history. Why don't we document it's existence. Zana Dark 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Any editor who wishes to document words is welcome at Wiktionary, where the goal of the project is to do precisely that. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Watch out for sockpuppets. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this article were to be remade, detailing assumptive historical meaning of coiner, someone who made coins, it could be quite interesting. As of now, however, it is attempting to promote a neologism. LinaMishima 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I see all this talk and no EDITING happenning. Is this place collaborative or over-critical? Zana Dark 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Our coverage at the disambiguation articles Coining and Coin (disambiguation) is perfectly adequate, and this article is merely a simple duplicate of it. Redirect to either. Uncle G 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coining per Uncle G. Fan-1967 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Is it common to redirect to diambiguation pages? I'm not sure that I've seen that except for plurals. --Brian G (Talk) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirecting an -er to an -ing is about the same thing as redirecting between singular and plural. Fan-1967 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All I see here, is "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests." Let's work together find a common solution. Zana Dark 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Coining. --Stormie 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also: Chewbacca Defense Zana Dark 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Coining — By the way, Zana, you seem to be the one using Chewbacca Defense here. We are working together to find a solution. That's the point of sessions such as this. Ryu Kaze 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is there a reason this is even being discussed? Delete. - Corporal Tunnel 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Creative, though. Gimmetrow 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys might want to look at this before you argue with me anymore: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coining

Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 03:42, 23 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick pearson

Looks like a vanity article (created by User:Nick Pearson) Anons have been edit warring over this page as vanity or not. It has been deprodded at least once. This particular Nick Pearson appears to be completely overshadowed by an actor and also an olympic athelete, each of the same name. While it lasts, I encorage you to read his blog entry where he states such lovely things as:

"So my plea to you. Join Wikipedia, as it takes only a few moments, and post a comment on the discussion pages about how this page should stay on the website, not because it isn't self-serving or shamelessly promoting a radio show that no-one outside of Bathurst and Orange can listen to, but because people deserve to know as to the absolutely marvellous nature that is me."

I think the author well justifies that the page is vanity and that they themselves have self-justified themselves as not meeting WP:BIO. --Kevin_b_er 05:52, 14 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}}

• Speedy delete As non-notable biography. Werdna talk criticism 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. NN person and he even admitted it's a vanity page. TJ Spyke 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom, Don't leave it around for his blog-minions to flood the page. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Graham 07:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. Leuko 08:10, 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 Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. Yanksox 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_instant_messaging_clients

• Delete a list is not an ojective decsion because the list serves as a stub like the example of the software split. It should be expanded with a concise comparison based upon usage statistics, and its role in modern business.The multiprotocol list is useful for research. The point that 2bit software/freeware is added wrecklessly can be addressed by a requirement that the new entry must have 2-5 verifiable outside links (ie: sorceforge), and that their entry is placed inot talk before it is added. I thinks this is a better solution than deletion.

This page serves no purpose other than to allow non-notable two-bit apps to appear alongside notable ones. It's a pointless list and you don't learn anything. Andymarczak 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a list is not right for this type of subject, a comparison would be better and that is completely different.--Musaabdulrashid 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. Dinosaur puppy 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Leuko 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Comparison of instant messaging clients to List of instant messaging clients as comparison is an inherently pov word. MLA 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The comparison in this case is purely spec-led. No opinions involved. Having seen this though, my opinion is now Delete Both, as I don't believe the Comparison page is any different to the Yellow Pages. Andymarczak 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is nothing inherently POV about comparison. You can easily compare by sets of criteria that are not POV-laden. Comparing seems like a reasonable name for the article, because that's what it does (lists what features each client does or doesn't have). Also, I Strongly Disagree with the idea that this falls under Yellow Pages. Such a list is very useful and informative to users that are in search of instant messaging clients and/or services. [Comparison of instant messaging clients] is not simply a directory, but a well laid-out and deserving article. Ardent^†_∈ 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Redirect' There is no reason to delete this as such a list can be useful, but with the existence of Comparison of instant messaging clients the content in the disputed article is already covered. Ardent^†_∈ 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. the wub "?!" 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above - comparison provides substancially more information in a more useful format LinaMishima 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge then redirect.Ronabop 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace Read this and look at the German Wikipedia to see how they organised it.NaturalBornKiller 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean the articles Liste von Jabber-Clients and Multi-Protokoll-Client.
• Redirect per Ardent. I think splitting up the Comparison Article per NaturalBornKiller's suggestion would be a good idea, but in the mean time a simple redirect would be good.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eberron Mod

Unofficial mod, the game it is modding isn't even out yet, plus even the website establishes no notability with forums with no more than a dozen posts on it. Completely insignificant especially when you consider most announced mods never appear. Ben W Bell talk 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable and crystal ball, to boot. --Graham 08:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Muchness 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 10:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --SevereTireDamage 10:50, 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) 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Hinz

Consesnus sought for this rather obscure writer of Sci-fi books: 2 books ('Ash Ock' and 'anachronisms') out of print; Paratwa ranked #675,513; Liege killers ranked #867,362 per Amazon.

Apparently won the Compton Crook Award (Baltimore SF society) for best first novel and nominated (but not apparently shortlisted for the John W. Campbell Award for best new writer according to Fictionwise. Rather NN, from what I can tell. Ohconfucius 07:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a published, externally reviewed, and award-winning author, even if minor, per WP:BIO. --Graham 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for the same reasons that Graham mentioned. I added citations for the books. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Graham. --HResearcher 15:43, 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 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benier Koranache

Seems like a vanity page to me; request to the author to rewrite with substance has gone without a substantive response. --Graham 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete either its self-authored and violates WP:VANITY or its not and is copyvio from [12]. In either case its spam. Dlyons493 Talk 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, selfvertising. NawlinWiki 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the authour of the article had INVITED "graham" to show examples of BETTER articles _ but "graham" has chosen to make this a personal issue? we have NO idea what his agenda is. "graham" has REFUSED to send any EXAMPLES of the "the perfect article" for a BIO on this site. Can someone else show us a CONSTRUCTIVE, credible example? Go read Bill Bernbachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bernbach) article or Jay Chiat's... (on this site) Are those VANITY? OR are they BIOS of successful people - you've NEVER heard of or have no interest in hearing of? there are THOUSANDS that DO have interest in this information. (creativemf 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Have a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article and Wikipedia:Featured_articles Dlyons493 Talk 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

now THATS a sound, straight forward reference comment. (it) no presumptions, no personal bias (apparently) .. and no bizarre jealousy. Merci, Dlyons493! we'll check it out. (creativemf 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) Please do not accuse the nominator or any other users of having an "agenda", "personal bias" or "bizarre jealousy".

• Delete as a violation of WP:BIO and WP:VANITY, as well as fairly obvious advertising. Srose (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate tone; written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:VANITY is not grounds for deletion, but it sure as heck doesn't help either. Kickaha Ota 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I get only 79 google hits on his name, and most of them are things like letters and reviews that he has posted. There is a mention of him in the ad industry mag "'boards", but it is a one sentence "Benier Koranache has joined Blah, Blah, and Blah as a creative director." sort of thing. Brianyoumans 18:03, 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 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Slangs

Wikipedia is not an slag dictionary, and if it was these terms would go on the tamil encyclopedia. If any of these terms notable (for illustrating the structure of the language for instance) they can be merged with Tamil language somehow-- Musaabdulrashid 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Slang is an important part of colloquial language. They do not illustrate in any way the structure of the language. But that does not take away from its importance. Slangs reflect the people who use them and their way of interaction. The only way I can see of connecting it with Tamil language is by providing a link from the latter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avan gopi (talk • contribs) 00:24, August 14, 2006 (UTC).