Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 19 August 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn. AfD template was removed, and this deletion discussion is dormant. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Construction (RuneScape)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape)/Archive1 for other AFD nomination.

Page is a game guide, non notable. Edtalk c E 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you want this page deleted or just redirected to RuneScape skills? Hyenaste (tell) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if everyone wanted it deleted or redirected. See RuneScape's talk page, and go near the bottom. As you can see, there are others to be deleted.--Edtalk c E 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Want to just withdraw this nomination and work with me for the next fifteen or so minutes on this article? We just have to get the useful information out of the article, put it in RuneScape skills, and make a redirect like in all the other individual skills articles. Hyenaste (tell) 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this nomination--Edtalk c E 17:18, 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 by Wknight94.--Andeh 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheetah Girls 3

This article is tall an claims and short on actual material. Which of course also makes it unverifiable. Blood red sandman 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; unsourced, unverifiable, OR, low content, etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:23, 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 Merged with Dalhousie Law School.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domus Legis Society

College social clubs are not inherently notable and this one has no particulalry notable features. Delete. BlueValour 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The fact that it is Canada's oldest law student social society makes it sufficiently notable, in my opinion. Aplomado talk 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If it were 1865 not 1965 I might agree with you. I would argue that the oldest of something not notable is still not notable unless there is a lot of history which there isn't here. BlueValour 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Hmm. I usually vote delete on single school clubs, but this basically the first social society for law students in Canada. Forty years history, complete references. Teke 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I missed that pesky one liner in there about operating without university administration, and I can't find evidence on their website of official administrative approval. That is necessary for legitimacy. Teke 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Social clubs shouldn't be kept unless they have a large mebership/ have done notable works/ mentioned in the media. --Ageo020 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Social clubs should not be as Wikipedia's article per Wikipedia policies. Daniel's page ☎ 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. --Daniel Olsen 02:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge not sufficiently noteworthy as a stand-alone article but could be a section in the Dalhousie Law School article. --PullUpYourSocks 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable social club. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Dalhousie Law School, as this, like all other student life facets, should be discussed where it can be most reasonably sought. The article itself looks well done enough, but not as a solo entry. Geogre 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Dalhousie Law School, as per Geogre. --Nishkid64 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Geogre. Jon Cates 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Two marginal articles will become one adequate article by combining the material. StuffOfInterest 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and perhaps reduce somewhat. Heimstern Läufer 04:15, 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 (no contest). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAKwich

Was PRODed by me with, 'Non-notable sandwich. 2 Google hits.' PROD was removed by anonymous user. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, tagged as nonsense.--Andeh 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I don't see how this meets the criteria for patent nonsense. Aplomado talk 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Dr. Knutson created this sandwich when he was a hungry college student with only the above ingredients in his refrigerator.--Andeh 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How is that nonsense? The criteria reads thusly: "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." While the sandwich is clearly non-notable, the article is still coherent. Aplomado talk 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Fictional/hoaxish.--Andeh 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly that is not a critera for speedy deletion. --Edgelord 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Aplomado is right - while it's silly, it isn't patent nonsense by the WP definition. Yomanganitalk 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — 1) This sounds like advertising. 2) Is this sandwich well known? Probably not. 3) No references whatsoever - not even a company website. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, absolutely non-sense, and sounds like advertisement. Daniel's page ☎ 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; we need to add sandwiches to CSD A7. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not worthy of comment. --Dennette 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, good thing I didn't invent a sandwich with just the ingredients in my college refrigerator. NawlinWiki 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as if there was really any other option. It's a sandwich, and not a notable one at that. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 10:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--schgooda 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a notable sandwich. Google it and you get just 2 hits. --Nishkid64 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Faster the better. - Corporal Tunnel 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete muy rapido. will381796 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete this sandwich is tasty!!! This sounds like a good article.

Delete While I may agree on the potential tastiness of said sandwich, there is no WP:TASTY guideline we can apply here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT or WP:NEO It's not like a club sandwich or a caesar's salad, or even a BLT. Ohconfucius 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not something I made up in school. It's not my creation. It's a sandwich that is becoming quite popular, especially in Indiana. It's no different than a pb&J or a BLT or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.136 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2006

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

The result was speedy delete —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ungai the eel

This page is the exact same as Unagi (Super Mario 64) except this one is a spelling error. guitarhero777777 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyNetSpot.org

Non-notable website. Previously deleted at AfD, subsequently re-created, de-speedied and de-prod'd. ~ PseudoSudo 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment That's grounds for Speedy G4, I'm tagging it as such Teke 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - it has already been de-speedied after being speedied under g4, so don't do that (content is different so doesn't meet the criterion). Yomanganitalk 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Aye, I just checked on that and reverted myself. Teke 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Does not meet WP:WEB - alexa.com ranking of 5,315,586th most popular website[1] - definite non-notable. Kill it :) - GIen 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad. Aplomado talk 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - If ever, if ever an ad there was ... --Dennette 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Let this AfD run its course. If this AfD results in 'delete', then future recreations ought to be speedied. - Richardcavell 04:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If there were some non-Internet independently published references to this site, then maybe it could be saved. Until then, fails WP:CORP. -- MyWikiBiz 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Super Speedy Delete. It's already been deleted once, and this version is just as WP:SPAM as before. wikipediatrix 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, especially Alexa ranking of over five million. --Czj 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, This fails WP:CORP Daniel's page ☎ 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to satisfy WP:WEB, but unless it is the actual content from the previously deleted article, it does not satisfy WP:CSD.-- danntm T C 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Corporal Tunnel 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Jon Cates 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB...enough said. StuffOfInterest 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinhard Opitz

Total rewrite needed, therefore delete. Most of the page is an advert for an essay from an essay mill, in truly horrendous prose. Sample:

"Reinard Opitz was never invited to an academic position or convened as chair holder [...] a 51 year old German egg-head who had (in the sense of J.W. Goethe) attempted striving to solve one of the still undetected mysteries of social sciences named genesis and prevention of fascism."
  • Commentary: Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks [[2]]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at [[3]], [[4]], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I am also nominating the following related page

Wolfgang Abendroth

"Dr.iur. Wolfgang Abendroth (1906-1985) was in fact as a Marxist scholar a good red herring, and that's why there is no reason at all either to fish him when stylising him [...]"

for the same reason. They have a certain comedy value, though.

Leibniz 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The articles themselves are junk, but a look at the links inside seem to show that these were both authors of many many books. Someone who could read german would be able to better analyze them. No vote for now. --Daniel Olsen 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: the notability of Wolfgang Abendroth is actually pretty obvious judging from his article on the German Wikipedia and the hits I get for his name in an online library catalogue (held professorial chairs at several German universities, finally at Marburg; there are at least two festschrifts dedicated to him, one of them proceedings from a symposium in his name). Opitz (and especially his two-volume work Faschismus und Neofaschismus from 1988) seems to be somewhat important in left-wing German historiography. Regardless of the quality of the current articles, I can't see how these would be less valuable as subjects of articles than the thousands of insignificant baseball and cricket players we have. up+l+and 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I take your point about the notability of Abendroth. From the article, however, I got the opposite impression. Leibniz 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Opitz as a fine social scientist and intellectual. But, rewrite the article, this should be done! -- €pa 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a link to Reinhard Opitz in the German National Library Catalogue into the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Total rewrite is fine by me. Dlyons493 Talk 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Total rewrite needed and therefore it should be "delete": The bulk of this article is a copyvio. The header was by one hand, it seems, and the body by another. The header struggles from non-native idiom, but the body is fairly useless as a recreation of the lead page/review of a book. The author deserves discussion, but the article is wretched. If anyone closes this as "no consensus" or "keep," I urge him or her to get in there and do some editing to at least remove the fishy chunk. Geogre 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The copyvio (now removed by User_talk:Dlyons493) concerns material attributed to Richard Albrecht, which I have nominated for vanity. Leibniz
  • Keep: The Leibniz-spoors, Aug. 19, 2006, show a personal annihilation policy of Mr. Leibniz against these three entries: Wolfgang Abendroth, Richard Albrecht, and Reinhard Opitz - all of them German social scientist & left-wing scholars … M. Falke, Aug. 20, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.97.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep and Rewrite. It is written in a decent amount on the German wikipedia, so we can definitely expand on the article in the English wikipedia. A total rewrite is needed for the article, and whoever's doing the rewrite should at least know a bit of German, as it seems like 90% of the 200,000+ Google hits on Reinhard Opitz that one could use for research are written in German or in other foreign languages. --Nishkid64 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Strip it back to a stub if needed, and then get some German speakers to help. Also, really needs a few incoming links. StuffOfInterest 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The German article on Abendroth looks fine, and could be the basis for a total rewrite. No fishing of Marxist scholar red herrings over there, thankfully. The one on Opitz is not that great, and does not establish his academic notability that well, though he seems to have a cult. Leibniz 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Often the afd process can be quite helpful in drawing attention to an inadequate article and motivating constructive people to work on improving the it. Sounds like this is the case here. GBYork 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So then, if we have some German speakers interested in dead Marxists, we can close. A problem that remains, though, is that not many people in WP are interested in dead Marxists (unlike baseball players and anime characters). What may happen is that the same crud that nobody here much likes gets reinserted by the same anons as before. Leibniz 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Abendroth. Keep Opitz If User:Dlyons493 feels able to rewrite, perhaps a look on these contributions might be useful: 1.1. Reinhard Opitz: Liberalismus - Faschismus - Integration; Edition in drei Bänden (Bd.1: Liberalismus - Integration, Bd.2: Faschismus; Bd.3: Die »Röhm-Affäre«). BdWi-Verlag, Marburg 2000, 1 450 pp.; 1.2. reviewed by Jean Cremet in: Jungle World 29. Maerz 2000 [[5]]; 2. Georg Biemann, Kinderbilder für einen Weggefährten: Zur Biographie des Publizisten and Politikwissenschaftlers Reinhard Opitz; in: Forum Wissenschaft, 1/1998, pp. 50-54 (a short biographical sketch); 3.1. Richard Albrecht, Reinhard Opitz´ These von der Bewußtseinsfalsifikation - 30 Jahre später; in: Topos. Internationale Beiträge zur dialektischen Theorie, Novembre 2005, No. 24, pp. 123-146; 3.2. the enlarged online-version, with English summary, is completely free of charge publ. by GRIN Verlag Munich, 2004 [[6]]; 3.3. the abridged version in: junge Welt, 26. Novembre 2004, pp. 10-11; 4.1. Richard Albrecht, „...denkt immer an den ´mittleren Funktionär´... Wolfgang Abendroth (2. Mai 1906 bis 15. September 1985); publ. by GRIN-Verlag Munich 2005, completely free of charge: [[7]]; 4.2. abridged printed version: Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (iwk), 4/2004, pp. 465-487; 4.3. second printed version: Wolfgang Abendroth für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene, ed. Friedrich-Martin Balzer. CD-Rom; 2nd, enlarged ed.; Bonn: Pahl-Rugenstein, 2006 [ISBN 3-89144-371-4]. Aug. 23, 2006, M. Eser
Keep Abendroth, an outstanding political scientist. He has been much more important than either Opitz or Albrecht, anyhow. -- €pa 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Abendroth was also respected by political opponents. His personal integrety is e. g. documented by beeing a member of the constitutional courts of the German states of Bremen (1949) and Hesse (1959-1963). It seems there is a rough consence on the notability of Abendroth and that the article should be improved on the basis of the German article. Therefore I would like to ask Leibniz to withdraw that the page is deleted. I have no account and sign with 4 tildes, which will be converted to my IP. 85.167.175.70 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verity Keays

Individual does not appear to be notable outside of an 8th place finish on X-Factor. No other albums have been recorded no other Television appearances. I believe it Fails WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Acording to the History, there was more meat on this at one time, but now it's just a bare shell. 8th place in a field of 10? Not even worth mentioning. --Dennette 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 8th? Heh. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: A G1 speedy and a reality show contestant. One assumes that the show already has her name mentioned? Toss in there "she sings" and you've about covered her. Geogre 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I was Googling her name and I came upon Answers.com profile of her which was taken from Wikipedia. Apparently, the article ([8]) was written in much more context there (I guess someone just deleted most of the article and left it at what it is right now). I don't know if she'll be any more famous than she was in 2004, but she does have an album out, and someone could write about that. I would have voted to delete had I not seen this Answers.com bio taken from Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Something odd is going on there. My suspicion is that the original form (which got mirrored) was copyvio or something of the like, because it got chopped down (too much, I suppose) this month. No change in vote for me, as I still regard her as rather routine. Geogre 19:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Here. That's the article that is on Answers.com. However, on May 20, 2006, 81.151.222.11 vandalized the page as seen here. After that, no one noticed that a lot of information had been removed from the article, and so it stayed as a very short article until DrunkenSmurf tagged it for Afd. --Nishkid64 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Before attaching the Afd I made sure to check the history of the article to make sure it had not been vandalized. Previous versions of the article state she recorded some type of album before the show, but there is no source for that that I can find. The prior version of the article did not establish notability and neither does the current version IMO. DrunkenSmurf 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No allmusic.com entry, no indication of notable status. - Corporal Tunnel 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. will381796 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. 50 year old voice coach from Grimsby who performed on a TV competition. 1100 Ghits, mostly Xfactor related or wiki mirror sites. Ohconfucius 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. If her album(s) ever become successful we can write a new article. RFerreira 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per good research done above in checking out the sources of article changes as well as of notability. GBYork 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge verifiable information with Beck -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Banjo Story

(1st nomination) Despite it's fluffy language, this article is about a bootleg (unofficial) album. As far as I am concerned the article makes no great claim to notability for this bootleg; bootlegs are ten a penny and we generally choose not to document them. (Note, for example, the near-emptiness of Category:The Beatles bootlegs despite the existence of literally hundreds of Beatle bootlegs). Delete. kingboyk 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Beck, the links in the previous afd show that it's verifiable, but notable enough for a seperate article it is not. --Eivindt@c 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bootlegs don't chart, don't get tracked, don't get reviewed, can't be discussed encyclopedically on their own. The most famous bootlegs of all time were The Basement Tapes (later official) and Warsaw (by Joy Division, later officially released). When this is official, it will get references, and when it gets references, it will be possible for someone like us to discuss it. Geogre 12:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Geogre. wikipediatrix 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eivind. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eivind. Mike Christie (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep same as Girlysound. ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Me This

An unreleased album about which, the article itself and the external link provided both make clear, very little verifiable information is available. Delete. kingboyk 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete without predudice. I am not a fan of album pages, but this article is about an unrelased album. Should this be released in the future, it would be notable as his last album.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: Even though I bought Frank Zappa's first three albums as soon as they were released back in the 1960s, this one never made it to the shelves, so it does not belong in the Wiki. --Dennette 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not official, so not reviewed or released, so not appropriate for a tertiary source. Geogre 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unofficial, little vertifitable informations. Daniel's page ☎ 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per no reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A mention under the artist's article would be plenty. StuffOfInterest 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hayze

Tagged for speedy deletion, CSD-A7, but I'm not sure so it comes here instead. Anyone familiar enough with the band and/or WP:BAND to judge one against the other? ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:BAND and has no significance or notability KnightLago 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Some information on Hayze ... Hayze supported the Stranglers (at 2004's Halesworth gig in the park in Suffolk UK) and The Seers (the new band from ex Oasis member Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs). Hayze also appeared on a TV spot on Anglia news in 2004 when they performed a live track. Hayze album appears on iTunes, HMV and Virgin download sites. Hayze are due to appear at the Edinburgh International Festival later this year 2006. Martin Rondell 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete despite the above comment from the article creator they still seem non-notable at the moment though that might soon change. BlueValour 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looking at WP:BAND, they don't quite make the cut. --Daniel Olsen 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: We cannot borrow against the future for an article. They might make it huge, and we will then want an article, but we can't now. Geogre 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete According to WP:BAND, they have not been featured in any multiple non-trivial published works in any reliable and reputable media. Moreover, the release of only one album is a maor concern here. Perhaps later. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND. *drew 03:36, 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 Merged with Cox Models.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cox gas engine toys

Pretty much invisible per the Google test, no evidence of sales numbers or anything else per WP:CORP, no sign of any reliable sources or significant third-party coverage Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Did you try "Cox" and ".049"? About 332,000 Google hits. Cox gas engine toys were on every storeshelf from Wal-Mart to K-Mart and of course in all hobby stores when I was a kid. I owned several model cars and airplanes that used engines as small as .010 and as large as .35. Mugaliens 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - At the time of writing there are over a hundred Cox 049s for sale on eBay so they seem perfectly collectable. Factual articles on historic collectable toys are entirely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the two comments above. --Daniel Olsen 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cox Models same topic much more complete. Dimitrii 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Cox Models, as these are absolutely cultural touchstones for a large (physically, at least) segment of the population (look for the self-tinting glasses and walrus moustaches). Geogre 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — with Cox Models as per above. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borgen Project (2nd nomination)

  • And right after doing some minor cleanup on this page and adding a fair use directive, I'm nominating this for deletion, mainly on the basis of its last VfD, which resulted in a consensus of delete as a non-notable think tank. It's been a year, though. Has anything changed since then? theProject 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To address the concern of theProject, quite a bit has changed with the Borgen Project since last year. They've launched a massive public awareness campaign by distributing their PSA across the nation (currently 25 whole states). As the previous user noted, they also got meetings with over 40 key congressional offices in July of 2006. Again, it's not a think tank but a player in the process of increasing political attention on international poverty. Please also notice that Clint Borgen (President) is mentioned on the United Nations page and the Borgen Project is cited on the Millennium Goals page. Wikiusa 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is entirely self-promotion. Gazpacho 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if no references from outside media can be found: We don't allow promotion/advertising even of worthy and non-partisan organizations unless there is some outside reference to the group's significance/effectiveness. If you ask not "how can I tell people about this organization" and ask, instead, "Who will want to know what this organization is because of curiosity," you get nearer to an article standard. Geogre 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Until multiple independent publications feel it worthy to write about it, it fails WP:CORP. -- MyWikiBiz 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Marshall

Non-notable actress, doesn't appear to come close to satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. BlueValour 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - less notable than any of the characters she has portrayed. Dennette 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. - Richardcavell 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — For good. SynergeticMaggot 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. --Nishkid64 18:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above will381796 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Her profile is listed on Amber Marshall at the Internet Movie Database. Moreover, the subject in question has a solid case of verifiablility. A search on google shows quite a number of websites asserting her importance. The article in question has the potential for expansion as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The first Google link is "Teacher's Aide Allegedly Had Sexual Contact With Students", about a different woman with the same name (look at the picture!) ... there are many people listed on IMDb who are not noteable enough to be listed in Wikipedia, and most of those Google links are for Other People with the same name. Dennette 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Subject does not yet satisfy criteria per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. Transwikied to Film-Flam. dryguy 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep apears to be noteable enough, just a very short article that will need work done to it - that doesn't mean it doesn't have potential. - Blood red sandman 13:19, 25 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline Empires

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. BlueValour 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Dont forget it fails WP:OR and reads like a game guide (WP:NOT). Cruft per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs nor Freshmeat.org, and reviews are disallowed anyway. This is in addition to the fact that the game is not mentioned in outside media. Geogre 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable, and fairs poorly according to WP:GOOGLE. --Nishkid64 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and reads like a game guide. Fairs poorly on WP:GOOGLE too. All these compelling cases point that this article should be deleted. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. --Cooper-42 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a page of helpful information for new players to the game. Its what made me the AE player I am today - Alex Stankevitch, CEO of Metroline Airways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.5.250.47 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17823 Bartels

There are 100s of thousands of asteroids (and this is not a notable one) and Wikipedia already has a perfectly good system for cataloguing them and adding encyclopaedic material. This one is here. The author can add the telescope bit and link to his website if required. A redirect is not correct because it is illogical to redirect a small number of them when there is a full index here. Delete BlueValour 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete per nom, unless more information is added, in which case my vote is Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: Already listed in Meanings of asteroid names (17001-18000)#801 with other NN honorees. Dennette 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—If you look at List of asteroids you'll find that the standard format has slots for discussion of each and every asteroid including a name that is red linked. We've provided numerous red links that invite folks to add items like 17823 Bartels; perhaps our deletion shold should include discussion with members the community that created List of asteroids. Otherwise this is likely to be the beginning of such debates and decisions rather than the end. We can fix the asteriod entries one at a time, or agree on a principled approach for the general asteroid listing. Williamborg (Bill) 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Redundant, and useless. SynergeticMaggot 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G1 even if we don't settle the issue of the lists: The "article" is a sentence fragment. One of the reasons that people will delete lists is that they indiscriminately promise article space to thousands of items that might be so unknown by the general world as to be impossible to write about. The secondary issue here is that the List of asteroids article links every single rock. That is a mistake...a huge mistake...but it is an editorial mistake. Geogre 13:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Geogre. Besides, as one of my favorite quotes from WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". wikipediatrix 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with user bluValor. Angelbo 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The "Meaning of asteroid names..." article can contain everything in this article. Should it later become The Hammer of God, then it will certainly deserve an article of its own. StuffOfInterest 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn rock. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see why anyone could ever have thought it necessary to create the article in the first place. -- Blood red sandman 12:33, 25 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converium Holding AG

Non-notable corporation; fails WP:CORP. Valrith 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Noted reinsurer, listed on Swiss and New York stock exchanges Catchpole 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Being listed on a stock exchange isn't a notability criterion. Being a component of a share price index (that doesn't simply cover the whole market) is. See WP:CORP. And to support your statement that this company has been "noted", please point to where it has been noted. Please cite sources to support that currently unsupported assertion. Neither you nor the article have cited any. Uncle G 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Take your pick from the 35,000 pages on 'coverium holdings reinsurers' in google. They are rated by Standard and Poor's. Catchpole 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, "converium holdings reinsurers" returns 0 ghits. You can only get past 35,000 by leaving off the quotes altogether. `"converium holdings" +reinsurers` only returns 128 ghits. Valrith 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Counting Google hits is not research. One must actually read the pages that Google locates. If you find anything about this company beyond simple business directory listings and re-prints of corporate press releases, please cite it, as you've already been asked. Please demonstrate that the assertion that you made above is actually true. Uncle G 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Until the author(s) realize how to cite multiple, independent sources discussing the company, and to do it without violating copyright, this should be a delete. Marginally humorous remark expunged>. -- MyWikiBiz 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't you think it's inappropriate to advertise in AfD? JChap2007 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Separate to this discussion, that was a clearly blatant piece of advertising by MyWikiBiz and such I have blocked them for seven days whilst RfA process takes place. This is also related to earlier agreement that MyWikiBiz would not carry out this type of activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonW (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The Google test works especially badly when you don't spell the name of the company right. "Converium Holding AG" (no "s") gets 66,100 hits. "Converium Holding" gets 78,000. It's a huge reinsurer that is widely covered in the financial press and so meets the "multiple articles" requirement of WP:CORP. I'm going to resist the urge toward argumentum ad Pokemon here. JChap2007 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, fairly obvious large global corporation. I've re-written the article to remove the terrible cut&paste corporate adcopy. It should pass most WP:CORP criteria; it is a member of several indexes; it has many, many mentions in independent articles. Take your pick - I've only added a handful as references in the article and noted the index componenet membership. Kuru talk 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They seem to meet WP:CORP. However I slapped a Cleanup tag on there since the article could use more work if kept. Lack of quality is not a reason to delete as far as I know. Vegaswikian 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copa Telehit

Non Notable, no information at all, seems like the user created the page for an internal championship sponsored by a TV Channel. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gimme a break ... not even dates?? Dennette 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: We are not Telehit, and so we needn't host their pages. Geogre 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Nishkid64 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above will381796 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection (Michael Jackson album)

An orphan article full of speculation about an unreleased album. Seems to be an opinion piece/fancruft rather than a serious article. kingboyk 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no references, first 50 Google Hits for Michael Jackson Resurrection give nothing creditable, this is somewhere between WP:V & WP:NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaphane (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. I've never seen an article that contained the word "rumor" this many times. I think the only thing verifiable in the entire article is that there is, in fact, a singer named Michael Jackson. Fan-1967 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How did this go unnoticed for so long? Dennette 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mitaphane and Fan. Joe 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. hateless 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. On Wikipedia, you need valid sources in articles. This is not some gossip column in People Magazine. (or whatever people read these days) --Nishkid64 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The words "crystal ball" come to mind. Molerat 17:10, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darais Kemp, Sweet Sweet

WP:MUSIC (artist and sole unreleased album) kingboyk 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the artist, Delete the unreleased album. Dennette 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as the artist's page itself says that "Kemp's music is virtually unknown." -Elmer Clark 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: More specifically, the record didn't get a label release. The artist is known to file sharing traders, which puts the artist beyond the realm of mainstream commentary, and that means V and cite requirements can't be satisfied, so delete both. Geogre 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Artist and Delete the album. --Nishkid64 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Geogre, and I would note to those who vote Keep, that the closing admin will probably ignore your "votes" if you don't give us an explanation as to why you think the article should be kept. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Singer does not appear to meet WP:MUS. In any event, a brief mention on the BBC does not constitute "multiple non-trivial published works". Sweet, Sweet should also fall, NN non-issued album by NN artist. Ohconfucius 02:39, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Want Fun

More unreleased-album fancruft. kingboyk 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Gracenote says it was released as a single in 2002. Looking at Gracenote, this musician has 21 CDs listed, but they mostly seem to contain the same fifteen or so songs in different combinations. So yet another unreleased packaging option isn't notable. --John Nagle 18:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — does not meet WP:MUSIC/SONG nor even come close. Fancruft per nom - GIen 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, then Rewrite - This article is completely unverified, but "We Want Fun" was the name of a single he released, it became the theme song for Jackass the movie. Even if WP:MUSIC/SONG was policy or guideline, the song would pass. --Daniel Olsen 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Targets and Utility

Original research essay, fails WP:OR. Google search of "Targets and Utility" brings up six completely unrelated links. --Wafulz 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapid Delete: Gives original research a Bad Name ... cannot figure out how title relates to subject under discussion ... "utility" appears beaucoup times in nearly every paragraph, but "targets" only appears in the title! Dennette 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—This article apparently relates to utility theory in game theory. It is rather poorly written—it may not be original research—but probably deserves to be deleted based on clumsy writing. I'll not vote to delete for a couple of days in hope that someone literate in the topics can give us a more intelligent comment on whether a serious revision can save it, or whether it deserves to vanish. Williamborg (Bill) 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but tag it "verify" and "sources" Essentially agree with Bill. poorly elaborated article, unsourced and unclear as to its origins, but probably not OR (see article on utility and game theory. I suspect the author may not have had time to refine it before it has AfD slapped on it the same day. Ohconfucius 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Left comment at User talk:Bordley requesting he get in touch so we figure out how to improve this article to avoid a delete. New editors should be saved when possible; and not discouraged. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Uncle G makes an exceptional argument for this being a verifiable theory that is being presented almost as OR here. I will tag it for merger with evolutionary musicology -- Samir धर्म 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musilanguage

This is an article which has been around for a while, without ever being fixed up. The term was coined by one man, and the sources which refer to it all appear to mention it as being his term. Of the 100-odd unique Googles, Wikipedia is the leading resource on this subject. This has all the appearances of a one-man neologism, and in the time since I originally tagged it for cleanup it seems to have become less prevalent not more. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This appears to be a non notable term, possible Hoax. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is, as its first paragraph states, about "a theory that music and language have a common ancestor". The article had several references discussing and analysing the co-evolution of music and language from sources other than Steven Brown, including a detailed discussion in a second book by a different author, until JzG removed them immediately before nominating the article for deletion. The problem with the article is that it only currently includes material from the first source, not that the theory that it discusses is original research. Deletion is not the way to fix that, nor is removing from the article the sources that can be used to improve it. The objection to this article appears to be based solely upon its use of Steven Brown's word for the theory as its title, rather than upon reading the sources to see whether the co-evolution of language and music has been discussed by people other than Brown. That's a simple matter of article naming conventions. The way to fix the article is to round it out with the discussions from the other sources on the relationship between music and language, including the New Scientist article, not to delete it. Keep. Uncle G 12:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, if one looks at the references section of Chase's book, one will find that there's an awful lot of source material in the field of Biomusicology on the subject of the evolution of language and music. There are works by Bickerton, Cross, Dissanayake, Falk, Fernald, Geissmann, Hauser & McDermott, Huron, Miller, and Todd that all appear to have relevance to the subject. Uncle G 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the ones which were not reliable sources, and having found that what was left was not much I nominated it for deletion. There is no credible evidence of widespread currency of this term. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No, you didn't. You removed two articles from New Scientist, some university degree course material, an article by Bob Fink, and a book.

          It may or may not be the most common name for an article about a theory of the co-evolution of music and language, but that is a simple matter of naming conventions, not deletion. To warrant deletion, it would have to be established either that this article is unverifiable or that such a theory has not progressed beyond its creators. The many works on this subject from several authors, both in the article and in the references section that I point to earlier, belie both of those. Uncle G 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

          • I certainly don't want to pick a fight with you here. I am happy to concede that the concept may be significant, but the title gives undue weight to one man's name for it. What should it be called, and how widely is the theory accepted among subject experts? Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I didn't think that you were trying to pick a fight. ☺ We're having a perfectly fine discussion about the provenances and depths of sources — the proper study of encyclopaedists. I've actually been thinking along the same lines as you appear to be. This article is clearly too narrowly focussed, including material from only one source. (One of my motivations for adding the other sources to the article in the first place was the hope that an editor would expand its scope.) But we don't need to delete it to fix that. A merger, along with The Origins of Music (another article that really is too narrow in scope to stand alone) into evolutionary musicology seems to be the best course of action. Uncle G 11:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 1 hit on JSTOR, which contains 38 music journals. (The hit is a review of the book.) Zero hits on ScienceDirect, but since SD doesn't include music journal this isn't quite as telling. No evidence of widespread usage. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet: The Novel

Non-notable book. Author keeps spamming it and himself all over Wikipedia. Speedy deletion was removed because this instance is not "substantially similar" to the deleted version (AfD here). An anon (presumably the author) removed the PROD tag without explanation. This book is published by vanity press AuthorHouse. amazon.com SalesRank of 253,537. 50 unique Google hits for "Michael Szymczyk" Toilet. Author's page has been deleted and protected. This is at least the third time this page has been created, consider protecting it against re-creation as well -Elmer Clark 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Is this what happens when someone's only childhood book was Everybody Poops? ;) NawlinWiki 03:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect. I think this is more a consequence of reading "You're a Naughty Child and That's Concentrated Evil Coming out the Back of You". Opabinia regalis 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect ... just like the with author. --Dennette 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Flush it into the Toilet Spam --Ageo020 06:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect it this time. This is getting ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom will381796 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect. Delete also Image:Toilet The Novel.jpg Ohconfucius 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as the article has been cleaned up.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilmette Public Library

  • Delete: Non-notable public library. I haven't found any notability guidelines for libraries but, from searching on Google, this appears to be no different than any other public library. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — It's not necessarily un-notable, but it would definitely need some expansion by the person who started the article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Any institution that merely fulfills its institutional goals and does so in an ordinary way is one that is not noted in its field, is not "notable." This came from 1901, and there are thousands with Carnegie grants. Although the article is written well enough, the institution isn't of a high enough profile. Geogre 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A library is like a school - it can have a profound effect on thousands of people who pass through it. Disk space is cheap. Markb 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete'. Not notable. We would have over 100,000 more articles if we made an article on every random library. --Nishkid64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I agree that libraries are very important, and if this is the only library that serves that city, then I agree it should be included. However, if it is one branch of all the city's libraries, I do not think that if a library is just one branch out of several in a city that every branch should be included (see San Antonio Public Library). will381796 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: By this logic, should we also have an article for the post office of each town that has only one? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment That's a good point that you make. A post office is also very important to a community, and yet, not every one has an article. It seems to me as though its a bit of hypocrisy within the wikipedia community in that schools merely need to be verified as existing in order to get an article, while everything else has to be verified and notable. I do not think that being verifiable also confers notability, which is apparently what many people believe. I have a big problem with the inclusion of every school just as long as you can verify that it exists. I believe that schools should only be included if they are notable for some reason. See WP:SCHOOLS. But concensus among wikipedians and apparent precedent states that all schools are notable. While I strongly disagree with that, I alone cannot change wikipedian policy or guidelines. If all schools deserve an article, then at least the main library serving a city is important enough to deserve an article. And maybe even the post office serving the community... will381796 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SCHOOLS is not an accepted policy and schools are frequently deleted for being non-notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Typical suburban library. Nothing notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article contains no assertion of notability. That the community is currently making the wrong decisions and keeping school articles not worthy of inclusion is no reason to expand that to town halls, mayors, libraries, post offices, and all the other ordinary local institutions of daily life. GRBerry 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Architecturally notable building, citizens apparently willing to pass bond issues for any needed improvements or expansions, extremely high 94% of residents have library cards, per capita circulation is very high 23. They are a far above average library. This is the only library in the Village of Wilmette, and with its cultural programs it appears to be a vital part of the community. Edison 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep primarily per Edison, not to mention the fallcious statements made by JChap2007 are not helpful. Silensor 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison. Vegaswikian 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Edison, but strongly disagree with the all libraries are notable crowd, and particularly with Markb, by whose definition of notability every billboard advertisement would be notable so we could have Chivas Regal billboard on the corner of 3rd and Main and other similarly "notable" articles. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well I'm glad this article was fleshed out but it's too bad it took an AFD to make it happen. It didn't sound any more notable than the corner bookstore when I first ran across it. Nice job fixing it up... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It was created at 22:12 on Aug 19 and the AfD was 02:00 on Aug 20. Many articles start as a mere stub and get expanded by the original or other editors. The alternative is to create the article in a word processor, then import it "full grown," which sometimes makes readers suspect it is copied from some other (copyrighted) source if it reads too well and is too long when newborn. Edison 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I edit in user-area sandbox areas and initiate pages full-grown all the time and have never been accused of copyvio. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timo Connor

Google search for Timo Connor or T Crew + Connor turn up nothing. The "links" to sources don't point where they claim to. Utterly non notable. Nscheffey(T/C) 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As this is most likely a hoax. I have removed the links in question since they pointed to sites that had nothing to do with the article and were clearly put there just to make things look legit. DrunkenSmurf 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, claims of Conan O'Brien appearance and critical acclaim are unsourced, rest is nonnotable. NawlinWiki 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Try again after he's released an album, and it's been at least nominated for a Grammy -- Dennette 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above will381796 21:46, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Kaplan

This person isn't particularly article worthy. The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him and made him a quasi fad. Until he does something noticeable/recognizable, I feel this page should be deleted. StvnLunsford 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • De-Lee-te so it can fly free tenaciously. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt August 20, 2006, 15:44 (UTC)
  • Keep Google return thouthands links on him. Very notable. Nomination for deletion looks like POV to me. TestPilot 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you tell me what search terms you used? "Lee Kaplan" seems to mostly return other people. Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome.JChap2007 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I used "Lee Kaplan DAFKA" - Google return 22 000 hits. I actually did not tryed any other search. I belive there is not so many Lee Kaplan's associated with DAFKA. And 22000 is A LOT of web pages, way more than enough to say that guy notable enough to have article on him. TestPilot 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome. WHAAT??? I just saying that saying something like The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him is a POV. POV stand for "point of view". This is fact, not a "conclusory allegations".TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I misread you. I thought you were accusing the nominator of bad faith. I probably need to brush up on WP:AGF myself! JChap2007 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio. [9] JChap2007 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Lee Kaplan himself here, I think he might want to clarify that. At least he left msg on my page. TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone clarify this? The article looks like a cut-and-paste from his FrontPageMag.com bio. Was this content in fact released under GFDL? JChap2007 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, calling us anti-Semites. I'll agree, I did let POV sneak into my deletion nomination, but I still haven't seen anything to make him truly

notable.StvnLunsford 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

POV and spite is never a reason to VFD something, for future reference. I've had to deal with such VFDs in the past, one of which was kept. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lee Kaplan's DAFKA is a commonly-cited reference in debates on the Middle East. In fact, Google shows that more than 12,000 Web sites contain the link dafka.org. Kaplan's other work has also been cited very frequently in debates on the Middle East. --Bill Levinson 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a YTMNDer myself and don't think he's notable even within the context of YTMND. If we want to talk about what YTMND fads are popular, and which we can merge with the YTMND article, we can. But this certainly isn't one of them. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:15, 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 redirect to Live action. Anyone who wants to tackle categorization is welcome to. -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Action Anime

Contested prod. The previous version was mostly a POV rant against live-action versions and general information about one forthcoming live actions movie. An anon tried to clean this up, but the article as it currently is can easily be converted into a category. Any information the article could contain should (theoreticallly) either be placed in Tokusatsu or Japanese television drama or Live action.--Kunzite 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Categorize and redirect to Live action per my reasons above. --Kunzite 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind deleteing and categorizing, but live action remakes of anime and manga isn't confined only to Japan, City Hunter and Initial D are examples of official live action remakes that are not Japanese. --ColourBurst 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why I suggested Live action as the redirect point. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, when I opened the article I wondered if it was a category I was looking at. --HResearcher 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't anime, by definition animated? By your definition, the recent cinematic release of the Lord of the Rings should then be live action animation, since it was originally animated. --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That could be fixed by changing the name to something like live action adaptions of anime. --Edgelord 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
(It's not my definition. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to a better title or simply categorize per above. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve: The page seems consistent with the relevant list guidelines. It's not a page I would personally read, but I can't think of a policy or guideline against it, and it seems to fit in with the other anime lists. TheronJ 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize - Wickning1 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve, if it hasn't been improved by end of August re-list for deletion. Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Live action. There seems to be fairly little sense in having two articles on almost the entire same subject.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize it is already a low tech version of a cat. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize per comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment relist? It looks like there already is consensus. 132.205.93.88 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, but the AFD was already over 16 days old when I relisted it. Either the closing admins do not know exactly what the consensus is or they just overlooked it. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this is a topic that is alright to be kept. There is a difference between live action anime and say live action comic book adaptations or live action cartoon movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfezfilms (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Petros471 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaguya Katemaro

A minor fictional character in, uh, something (Naruto?) Not clear exactly what this about. Google search in both English turns up little, not sure what the Japanese name would be. I will stay out of this discussion for now. Andrew Levine 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of characters in Naruto. Yes, he is from Naruto, but looks pretty minor. They have a section on him there but some of the info from this article could be moved there. Redirect per some guy below. Recury 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Dark Shikari. Don't ever remember any Kaguya other than Kimimaro Kaguya. Rather, redirect given Someguy0830's comments. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Source before Merge. I'm not sure how acurate the information on that page is, so it should be sourced first before a merge can take place. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Since Someguy0830 states that none of the information can be verified other then the character exists, Redirect to List of characters in Naruto. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, the only part of that page that is accurate is the fact that he's Kimimaro's father. The rest is just guessing or nonsense. For example, he died in a war with the Mist Village, not Haku's clan. He never exhibited any sign of that bone-growing ability. Etc, etc. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, in deference to Someguy0830's expertise. Andrew Levine 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of science fiction anime

Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into either Category:Science fiction anime or Category:Mecha anime. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, allows users to look for alternate names and is better structured than the categories. Kappa 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Redirects should be used for alternate names so people can search using the built-in site search function. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, most things that have "list of" can be catgorized by category. This list is no different. It is a NPOV list so I see no problem with keeping it. Valoem talk 13:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, there was a lot of anime that are not Sci-fi, such as Haibane Renmei and Peacemaker Kurogane, or may contain minor Sci-fi elements, such as ToHeart. To put it bluntly, the list was never really sourced and even when I was categorizing the list based on Anime News Network's database, there were disputes about ANN's accuracy and whether it was a reliable source. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "entire list" is not in the catagory - I counted 12 red links. As with all lists, it could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter. LinaMishima 17:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Redlinks were moved to the centralized Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - For a structured list we have List of anime. For redlinks we have List of anime and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Since there are categories that duplicate the purpose of this list there is no need to have to maintain multiple> lists. Shiroi Hane 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, List of anime has been deleted (just a few days ago, in fact) and the various sub-categories of Category:Anime have taken over where the list left off. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, genre lists tend to fail behind easily and are more easily managed as categories. --SeizureDog 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as much more manageable and likely to be used than List of anime. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changed, see below.
  • Delete as much less manageable than Category:Science fiction anime. What does this do that the category doesn't? Two things that I can see: hold redlinks (which are not supposed to be here, per the introduction), and contain cross-references for a handful of entries. I don't see that either justifies keeping a list that's even formatted to look like a category, largely duplicates a category, contains no additional information not present in the category for the vast majority of entries, and must be laboriously maintained, all the more so because the page's two-column design must be organised by hand. — Haeleth Talk 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Haeleth stole my answer and reformatted it in a way that makes perfect sense. --Kunzite 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lists are only justified if they add real value to a category - this doesn't. BlueValour 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I take that back. Delete per various arguments on this page (especially Haeleth's, above). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment The 'parent' list, List of anime, has actually been deleted now. Shiroi Hane 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I frequently see that "red link" argument in favor of keeping lists. But the red links could just as easily be added to the category page as a bulleted list, and they're already on the list of requested articles page. Anything that links to this list can then be redirected to the category. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haeleth's excellent argument. This is both redundant with the category and more difficult to maintain properly. Nandesuka 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haeleth. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Parent category deleted, and as pointed by Haeleth, there already is a category for such anime. No need for a redundant list. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:03, 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. Nandesuka 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of manga published in English by Tokyopop

Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into Category:Tokyopop. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I've added the similarly categorized: List of manga published by VIZ Media that was also de-prodded to this AfD. (Same list, same topic, different company.) --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a plain, unstructured list does not render an annotated, structured list obsolete. Kappa 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The list is neither annotated nor structured any differently from the category. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Both lists are annotated, and the Viz list is currently well-structured. The other list previously had some structure [10], I think I'll go put it back. Kappa 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What on this list could not be represented by a category? I see nothing. --Kunzite 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - between List of manga and Category:Tokyopop this page is fairly redundant. Shiroi Hane 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note:List of manga published by VIZ Media added at this point. --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Red links are possible on a list, "entire list" is not on in the catagory as there are red links. This is an advantage of lists. The list could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter LinaMishima 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what this page is for: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Secondly-- are they all notable? Some of them are perhaps sequels or related works that are covered in main articles. Others may be name variations which are unlinked. --Kunzite 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You asked what on this list could not be represented by a category, "sequels and related works", and "name variations" are exactly the kind of thing lists do well and categories do badly. Kappa 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Now, I remember where I've seen your name... You're the editor who de-prods everything. Lists do them just as badly. There was a redlink on the Anime list for Cyber City Oedo. The article was named Cyber City Oedo 808. Most name variations are not important--they'll come up in a search as name variations are supposed to be linked and require redirects to be made. Entries are often made to these lists with no research or searching of the wiki for prior articles what-so-ever. If there is something particularly in need of a variation, the redirect can be categorized. Anime is an extraordinarily well covered topic on Wikipedia--converting these vanilla lists in to categories is no detriment to the wikipedia. --Kunzite 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Surely making them less vanilla then would be far better than simply deleting them? The topic page system uses lists, and lists can feature a brief one-sentance description of a subject (whereas currently, catagories cannot - something to change?) LinaMishima 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
            • And? These are list of things publsihed by someone. Do we keep a list of book published by Random House? List of academic journals published by Elsevier? Notable anime and Notable names in anime which are two lists which serve thier purposes well. These two are nothing but list cruft. --Kunzite 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Many name variations are important because someone might know a title under only one of those names, eg. English/Japanese, or Tenchi Muyo vs No Need For Tenchi. Categorizing a redirect is an obscure trick and means that the the target will show up twice in the category. Kappa 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Redlinks were moved to the centralized Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but comment, should the category simply be "Tokyopop"? I would feel more comfortable with something along the lines of "Works published (or maybe licensed) by Tokyopop" as the category.--SeizureDog 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete (changed vote). Between redlinks on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and categories, these two lists are seem to be redundant. --GunnarRene 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The ADV releases category was deleted, but we have Tokyopop and VIZ media categories. Why? Should these not be consistent with each other? My opinion here is Either released-by lists or categories, not both. --GunnarRene 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Look, we have plenty of lists like this. List of Square Enix games, List of ADV releases are just 2 examples. I categorized all the items on the list. The list itself it nowhere near complete, TOKOPOP has 404 print titles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Request pages are TOOLS. Once an article is created, they are removed from the listing. Lists such as this are more permanent, well, listing of the subject. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, once an article is created, it is removed from the request page listing -- and automatically added to the category listing. Manually-maintained lists of articles are thus redundant. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ADV releases should be removed and categorized. And they would be categorized into the various sub categories.. Including publisher. Why do we need a list of books published by a company? What purpose does it serve? It's having lists for the point of having lists. --Kunzite 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to a category. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to a category. BlueValour 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per various discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This category would have never been populated without a list like this (that's exactly what happened by the way). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So the list served its purpose and now must move on to a higher existence. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that were useful once are superceded by other articles, categories, and so on. This isn't the first article to have this happen, and it likely won't be the last. As for whether or not a Tokyopop category could have been populated without this list, that's just absurd. Plenty of categories haave been populated without a list existing beforehand. Certainly, the list made it easier to populate the category, but that doesn't mean it would have been impossible to do so without the list. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It was not entirely. I went through Category:Manhwa and added Tokyopop to the correct entries. There are also other ways to get the list of items by a certain publisher: OCLC amazon.com or the publisher's website. --Kunzite 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete surprised to see this much discussion for something that's obviously redundant listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of clubs in Buenos Aires

This is an indiscriminate list mixing clubs of various types, not saying what type of club they are or adding annotations. The exisiting categories by topic do a better job. This list has been around for over a year so if anyone was going to give it TLC they would have by now. It is simply pointless. Delete. BlueValour 02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Alias Flood 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Resolute 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Brat32 08:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alias Flood. Thε Halo Θ 11:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3Kingdoms

A non-notable MUD that fails WP:WEB with no outside sources and an Alexa ranking in the 1 millions. Crystallina 02:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alldaydrive

Fails WP:MUSIC. Every one of their albums is self-released and the only links given are their site and their Myspace. Crystallina 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonnotable band, 56 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 11:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. 1ne 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Michael Hays 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Day

Unnotable political candidate in Toronto municipal election. Never been elected nor held office. Nothing otherwise to distinguish this person. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO. Delete. Suttungr 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Green Party candidate for municipal council, nonnotable unless/until he wins. NawlinWiki 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unelected candidates for municipal office are not notable. Wikipedia doesn't even really have universal agreement that elected city councillors are notable enough (although councillors in major metropolitan cities like Toronto generally have cleared the bar in AFD precedent.) So...delete for now; he can come back if he wins. Bearcat 04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Joe 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Thε Halo Θ 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 11:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above will381796 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Bearcat. Skeezix1000 20:06, 24 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. Dakota 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gugo Veles

Non-notable writer. Only claim of notability is a book published by Booksurge, a vanity press. 133 Google hits (52 unique) for "Gugo Veles." His book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 1,547,068. -Elmer Clark 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Sounds interesting, but has only one self-published book for now. Dlyons493 Talk 11:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dead ReBoot characters

Non-notable. I'm a fan of the show, but this list is ridiculous. Virogtheconq 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: I am also a fan, but just merge this information as footnotes in List of ReBoot characters. --Dennette 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, and merge any relevent info into List of ReBoot characters. Thε Halo Θ 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete List of colours of socks worn by Buffy the Vampire Slayer. --IslaySolomon 12:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dennette's suggestion sounds good. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josef Bastian

Non-notable author. His five books (only indications of notability) are all published by vanity presses Booksurge and PublishAmerica. Their amazon.com SalesRanks are 2,073,833; 2,604,926; 3,236,665; 2,191,489; and one is unranked. 406 Google hits (212 unique) for "Josef Bastian," many are not relevant. -Elmer Clark 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the redirect:
  • Josef bastian -Elmer Clark 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You have do that next door at WP:RFD. I'll take care of it. Daniel Case 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Shamelessly sloppy self-promotion ... not even a birth date and location! --Dennette 04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN author. Resolute 05:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 11:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-traditional publishing! Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Leibniz 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. NN author, also challenged per WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO (author is Jbastian67). Ohconfucius 03:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tower Demon Claw (book)

Non-notable book, published by vanity press Booksurge. Does not have an amazon.com SalesRank. 13 Google hits (5 unique) for "The Tower Demon Claw" "Pete Macias." -Elmer Clark 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Leibniz 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Wasik

Non-notable author. His only claim to fame is publication by Poetry.com, a vanity press. Nothing by him is listed on amazon.com, and "Gareth Wasik" produces only Wikipedia and one other irrelevant Google hit. -Elmer Clark 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. When you're citing Jeffrey Archer in support of your literary merit, you're not notable. Daniel Case 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable (hoax ?) Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Victoriagirl 17:54, 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 both. Xoloz 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Up In Tier 3000

"Obscure novel" per article, by unknown author, Amazon sales rating below 2.2 million. NawlinWiki 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Update Adding to this AFD author Felix C. Gotschalk, who apparently only ever published this one novel, and had about three stories anthologized in the 1970s.[11]. 99 unique Ghits for "Felix C. Gotschalk". NawlinWiki 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The book has no assertion of notability, other than it tried to copy the stlye of A Clockwork Orange. Felix C. Gotschalk fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 11:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete book as per nom. Unecided re its author. Dlyons493 Talk 11:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment There's a claim of 23 novellas at [12] - a small number of these seem verifiable via Google. If he were actually the author of a book, and many short stories as well, then that would seem enough to keep him - verifiability is an issue though. But I don't see his single book as intrinsically notable enough to keep it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Not sure about this one but the arguments given here are way too weak to convince me. 99 unique Ghits strikes me as not so bad for an author who wrote in the 1970s. Similarly, the Amazon rank is of course extremely low since it relates to current sales (which are naturally horribly low for a 30 year old sci-fi book). The fact that the author's short stories are indeed part of anthologies sounds to me like an indication of (arguably limited) notoriety. 82.231.209.148 18:10, 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. Dakota 04:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The pocket and the pendant

Non-notable book published by vanity press Lulu.com. amazon.com SalesRank of 448,514. "the pocket and the pendant" "mark jeffrey" produces 14,700 hits, but only 199 are unique. Elmer Clark 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobifusion

WP:CORP; adspamcruftvertisment Rklawton 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CORP. Accurizer 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a corporate directory. Daniel Case 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wiki has better articles about companies that no longer exist, like my former employer, Computervision. (WTF is a "mobile content redistribution business" anyway?) Dennette 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm. Well, it's content that must be mobile, and that is redistributed. My guess is that it is a second-hand car dealership. ☺ Uncle G 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion that fails WP:CORP.--Jersey Devil 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:VSCA. Fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 11:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Non notable corp ans no notability asserted. Fails WP:CORP. Company formed in 2005 which "received funding in February of 2006 from a few investors in the US and in India". So what??? A company which does not receive sufficient funding is a non-starter by definition. WP:NOT a webspace host. Ohconfucius 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment sadly, neither corp nor notability are grounds for a speedy. Trust me, I would have tagged it as such had this not been the case. Rklawton 03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherie Priest

Non-notable author. Only claim to notability is the book (apparently based on a blog) "Four and Twenty Blackbirds," which has an amazon.com SalesRank of 292,540. Claims to have been shortlisted for a prize for books based on blogs, but the competition was sponsored by vanity press Lulu.com, and blog-based books aren't exactly a big enough genre (in my opinion) that being recognized within it means terribly much. "cherie priest" "four and twenty blackbirds" produces 268 unique Google hits. -Elmer Clark 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice. Where are all these vanity books and authors coming from all of a sudden? Daniel Case 04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They're easily found just by looking at "what links here" for the various presses listed at vanity press. If only finding non-notable bands was so easy... :\ -Elmer Clark 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep FOUR AND TWENTY BLACKBIRDS is published by Tor Books, which is not a vanity press. The author has two more books in the series forthcoming from Tor as well as inclusion in anthologies and forthcoming work from publishers such as Subterranean Press. FOUR AND TWENTY BLACKBIRDS was not "based on" a blog; rather, the author used a blog as a working tool in its composition. The author is a known and up-and-coming presence in the speculative fiction field. elizabethgenco 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Dvorkin

Sounds like a nice lady, but basically, she's a local librarian. Speedy tag removed by author w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Update Adding article by same author on Ms. Dvorkin's husband Daniel Dvorkin, a dermatologist who also appears nonnotable. I'm concerned that this user seems to be creating articles about all her friends. NawlinWiki 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a good idea - See my "Strong Keep" below. Daniel is completely different from Brenda and I think they need to be dealt with seperately. MxM Peace 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this can be speedied, there are numerous attempts in the article to claim notability, but being a librarian isn't enough. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, violates WP:NOT. --Xyzzyplugh 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 06:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete extremely silly article topic (a local librarian!!) only claim-to-fame is a "librarian of the year" award shared with 30+ other people. Utterly absurd and completely unenyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not at all encyclopedic, fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Brian 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Delete both, per nom and The Halo points on WP:BIO and notability. - David Oberst 07:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep on "Daniel Dvorkin" has a Google hit of 22,600; has book written by him and his father David Dvorkin author of Star Trek. So I think we MUST keep Daniel Dvorkin and also add David Dvorkin. I think the Brenda and Daniel Dvorkin link must be broken because they are completely different cases. By the way David gives a Google hit of 13,400. So it shows that Daniel has a better web presence. WP:BIO quotes inclusion for: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" MxM Peace 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alistair Gordon-Rae

non-notable author. Only claim of notability is a book published by vanity press Lulu.com, which does not have a SalesRank on amazon.com. 19 unique Google hits for "Alistair Gordon-Rae." -Elmer Clark 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. That picture says it all about how seriously we should take this page. Daniel Case 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity press author. - Richardcavell 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per WP:VAIN. SynergeticMaggot 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Victoriagirl 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have to agree. I did tell a1octopus that I didn't feel I warranted a wikipedia page on the basis of my current renown. I must say that I disagree that Lulu is a vanity press as I have thus far made a small profit from publishing my book there, but that is not an argument to be played out here. By all means remove the page. AlistairGordonRae 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I think that perhaps my friendship with the subject of this article clouded my judgement in creating it. On the basis of what he's written (above) I will not therefore defend it. Having said that I would ask that it is removed sooner rather than later so that his name does not appear on the same web page (this one) as "vanity press author" for any period of time as this is borderline libelous to both him and Lulu.com A1octopus 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, this page will remain as an archive forever. However, Lulu.com is also listed at vanity press. If this is libelous, then that's certainly a bigger deal. However, they do indeed appear to fulfill the critera for being a vanity press. -Elmer Clark 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment From what Alistair explained to me, Lulu.com is capbale of being used as a vanity press but (being expensive for bulk orders) they coudln't possibly be making the majority of their profits in that manner. They should therefore be considered a self-publisher. (a1Octopus - sorry didn't realise I wasn't logged in).
Comment Vanity presses and self-publishers are essentially the same thing. -Elmer Clark 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's definitely a view that could be argued over at length - but this is not the correct environment. A1octopus 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and the creator of the original article. Yamaguchi先生 00:53, 24 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)  16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted: Hero

non-notable comic book which has already been deleted under a slightly different name. Published by vanity press Lulu.com. 104 unique Google hits for "Wanted: Hero" "Jamie Buckley" -Elmer Clark 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As non notable, and failing WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 11:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — As recreation Computerjoe's talk 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Srose (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , This "e-comic" appears to be more well known than at first glance (though I've never heard of it.) This site has reviews of it listed, though I'm not aware of who these people are either.--Kisai 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to have been taken legitimately by the comic press, see Fourth Rail. It seems to have fans in the oddest of places too - See PsychJourney, Encouraging AudioBooks & Win Customize - --Tobey 14:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the above. It'd seem it doesn't necessarily fail WP:WEB since it's been reviewed by notable websites, at least. I say let it stay to see if a print review (which likely exists and just hasn't been found yet) turns out. For now the provided reviews give some verifiability to it being published and of it making the rounds of Indie comics. Xuanwu 09:11, 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 Speedy deleted. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shree sai das coaching

Basically an ad for an Indian test-prep service. Daniel Case 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willis Martyn

non-notable poet. Nothing by him is available on amazon. Articles claims he won an award from poetry.com, but a Googe search for "Willis Martyn" produces only 22 unique hits, none of which are from poetry.com. Also claims that his work is used as teaching material at a university, but there's no citation and none of the Google hits confirm it - in fact, most of them don't seem to be about this guy at all. I have doubts about the factual accuracy of the last two sentencs, and even if they are true, I don't think he would be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion due to low Google results and nothing on amazon. -Elmer Clark 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Addendum: He does have some poems on poetry.com, but if he did win an award there, it wasn't a cash prize, and therefore was a pretty minor prize even within the scope of poetry.com. -Elmer Clark 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps the best-known vanity anthology publisher is Watermark Press says it all. Dlyons493 Talk 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 17:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Per nominator Computerjoe's talk 18:39, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C/o

This is just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see no way to expand this into an article, and it can't be sent to wiktionary since wiktionary already has this. Xyzzyplugh 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW after excellent nomination argument. Daniel Case 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Couldn't c/o also refer to commanding officer? Anyway, I suggest moving the text to Care of and redirecting C/o there. - Richardcavell 05:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a dab page: link to "Care of" and "Commanding Officer" at Wictionary, along with any other definiteions that come up. --Daniel Olsen 05:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We already have Co, a disambiguation page. Commanding officer would be abbreviated CO or C.O., not c/o. It would make sense to redirect c/o to Co, but having two disambiguation pages on the same two letters would be a poor idea. --Xyzzyplugh 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. -- Whpq 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — dicdef. SynergeticMaggot 12:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, perhaps as a disambig. Worthwhile stub for now, needs expansion rather than deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A disambiguation between which things? Are you suggesting that c/o should duplicate the same items that are contained in the Co disambiguation page? --Xyzzyplugh 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Co. JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef. Vegaswikian 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect per nom - Blood red sandman 13:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bianka lenoir

Prod removed; no attempt even to meet WP:PORN BIO. Daniel Case 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article pin-up 3d model so this isn't even a real person? Speedy Delete Wildthing61476 04:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not real sure how virtual porn 'personalities' fit any guideline; article seems to just be a simple vehicle for a spam link. Kuru talk 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO, or WP:WEB, or WP:SOFTWARE, or whichever policy it is which best fits this. 21 unique google hits on this, no reliable sources}}
  • Rapid Delete Please ... this should be a no-brainer! --Dennette 04:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable fictional character, although as a fictional person I don't believe it falls under WP:CSD. hateless 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Claims un-verified. SynergeticMaggot 12:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Day of Research

Five cleanup tags on one article? Not a good sign. Unsourced naked tracklist, apparently for an album by Gerling, but this is the only one in a list of red links with an "article". Clearly doesn't need to be separate. Opabinia regalis 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. Is that 5 cleanup tags? It's a sight for sore eyes. Plus an AFD tag and a music stub tag and the templates are 3x longer than the track listing, plus all categories are for the tags: the only one close to the subject is the stub template. Wow. What a delete! TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and I'm getting rid of the cleanup tags in the meantime. There is absolutely no reason to have them on a page, IMO, as long as it's up for deletion. It sends a mixed message, for one thing. Daniel Case 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Fails everything, and I mean everything. SynergeticMaggot 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. —Michael Hays 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maniquette

Neologistic title of a non-notable book. The term gets a whopping 189 google hits and the book is ranked 299,469 on Amazon. Text is also hopelessly POV. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if you could have a decent NPOV article, it's a neologism from a NN self-published book. Fan-1967 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. entirely non-notable. --Charlesknight 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Somebody else will have to reclaim 21st Century masculinity from the ravages of a feminized society Dlyons493 Talk 11:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 18:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maneltoe

Complete neologism. 81 Google hits (and I can't believe I just googled "maneltoe"). Opabinia regalis 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sounds made up in school. Daniel Case 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ROFL! Dennette 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other Daniel above. Not even urbandictionary has this. --Daniel Olsen 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism. - Richardcavell 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Daniel Case, and ew, ew, ew. hateless 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid Blue

Somehow I don't think I need to Google to see this fail WP:CORP.Daniel Case 04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Speaks for itself. Dennette 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 11:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (for obvious reasons) and so tagged. —Michael Hays 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins Of Pasta

I thought of suggesting this be merged into pasta, but there seems to be a good section there already and the more I think of it, this just sounds like the beginning of a misplaced essay. Daniel Case 04:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "I believe ..." ... "I think ..." ... Could it be any more non-factual? Dennette 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. I think we need a new rule: WP:NOT for school essays. --Daniel Olsen 05:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR, WP is not for school essays is pretty much a point within WP:OR. hateless 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay "I think that pasta was independently invented by these civilizations around the same time." -- Whpq 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netdemons.co.uk

A 15-year-old kid's website where he posts his games. Despite the amount of viewers claimed in the article, it has no Alexa ranking. Fails WP:WEB.

I am also nominating David Howell (game developer) per above; the sources given in that article are mainly local. Crystallina 05:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete for the website, regular delete on David. He fails WP:BIO badly. --Daniel Olsen 05:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as vanity. Not to be confused with demon.co.uk. Gazpacho 06:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete both for vanity.--Jersey Devil 06:43, 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 keep, because the nomination was based only on suspicions of hoax, which this isn't. Based on the looks of it, it should probably be disambiguated due to the plurality of Bostons in Ontario. --CharlotteWebb 14:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston, Ontario

Procedural nomination. Nominated first for deletion by User:FayssalF on August 18, 2006. Closed by myself as speedy keep, re-opened immediately on request, closed as Speedy Keep by User:SynergeticMaggot a second time, but a request was made for further discussion regarding deletion. -- Samir धर्म 05:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable small community, per reasons on previous AfD -- Samir धर्म 05:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above. --Daniel Olsen 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the discussion in the previous AfD. Named places that are not incorporated municipalities usually warrant their own articles. This is particularly clear in areas where municipalities have been amalgamated by a provincial or national government. See, for example, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, a former city or Downsview, never a municipality. This article is a good example of how a resource such as the Atlas of Canada http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca can be used to find or confirm information about a named place in Canada. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep under longstanding custom. Gazpacho 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all places (real) are notable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per TruthbringerToronto. Zaxem 08:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth About Caffeine

An article about a book that doesn't seem to be especially notable. – ClockworkSoul 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a topic that many people are interested in. Amazon.com reports sales rank of 153,656 in Books. The Amazon.com page quotes reviews by Kirkus Reviews and BookReview.com. See also http://www.wkrc.com/entertainment/BookReviews/story.aspx?content_id=C561EB53-9058-4A64-9484-0E69CFBFD961 TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is introduced. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The book came out in 2006, so it's still fairly recent. The article is slim and monotonous, but I am willing to do a bit of digging to see if I can find notability (or barring that, notoriety). If I can't find anything, I'll withdraw my vote. Anchoress 07:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This book came to my attension when I was peer reviewing Caffeine. I found it in Category:Caffeine. I then recommend that it either be included in the article or be deleted. It seems that a least one editior involved with the article caffeine, though I suspect most would argee, felt that there is not a notable minority that believes that caffeine is harmful; and therefore it does not belong in the artile Caffeine. And if it is not mentioned in the main article on the subject it is a Wikipedia:POV fork. Granted it is about a book about how caffeine is harmful, but I don't see that much of a difference. Jon513 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm also editing the Caffeine article, and am a big fan of the stuff. But personally I don't think an article about a book about caffeine is any more a POV fork than an article about The Last Temptation of Christ is a POV fork to The Bible. Not to put too fine a point on it. :-) It's not a matter of whether or not people believe caffeine is harmful; if we delete the article because we disagree with the POV of the book we are deleting it for the wrong reasons. The issue is whether it can be proven to be notable. Anchoress 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more evidence of notability is presented. Kirkus is a trade publication that reviews thousands of books a year, while Bookreview.com allows authors to pay for reviews; a book reviewed only there and on one local news station's website is a book that has received very little attention. (Adding after edit conflict: I agree that this is not a POV fork and that notability is the issue.) —Celithemis 07:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article seems to be copyvio from here. --IslaySolomon 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Celithemis. -- Kicking222 12:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as confirmed copyvio from Amazon.com, article marked as such.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:39, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Orlando, Florida

Non-notable organization. Honestly this looks like Spam. And why is this article called East Orlando, Florida?? I followed a link on the Hurricane Charley page thinking it was an article for a geographical standpoint. Delete. Stubbleboy 05:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Also please note that another article created by the same user John Tenney has also been listed for afd review. Stubbleboy 06:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leaders of East Orlando --Stubbleboy 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't tell if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leaders of East Orlando is an afd page or not. I guess the last page Leaders of East Orlando must have been speedied?? Stubbleboy 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I could tell that it was not an AfD and have deleted it. An article Leaders of East Orlando has never existed. -- RHaworth 07:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: TruthbringerToronto asked me to take another look. Although this place does not appear on the national map and is not recognized by the county, it does have a chamber of commerce and a newspaper [13]. Not an "official" place, but it seems to exist in the lives of the locals. I'll think about it. Gazpacho 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes and isn't it quite odd that I recently opposed his promotion in his RFA today?? Stubbleboy 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure everything he does on Wikipedia revolves around you. Gazpacho 07:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per the article: "The name East Orlando is not currently recognized as an official area designation in Orange County, but is used by an advocacy group, The Leaders of East Orlando". This means the article as it is is about a non-notable political organization. WP:NOT a soapbox and there is no indication of any press coverage or other indication of notability. The area of East Orlando, if there is such a thing (they do seem to have a chamber of commerce), might well be worth an article, but this is not it. If kept, rename to The Leaders of East Orlando or similar. (Disclaimer: I'm the original prodder and was notified about this AfD by the nominator.) Sandstein 07:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Orlando, Florida. Even if it's not an official designation for anything, it's clearly a plausible way to refer to the eastern reaches of Orlando, Florida itself. --CharlotteWebb 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: How notable is the movement? News coverage? Etc. ? — ERcheck (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there is notable news coverage in the orlando sentinel - and the movement has financial backing - I considered nominating for deletion about a month ago - but started here and decided against it --Trödel 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity article. Appears to be a lobby group and "is not currently recognized as an official area designation". Ohconfucius 03:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWA World Hardcore Championship

Non notable wrestling championship with only one listing and no context Lid 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. hateless 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:26, 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 speedily deleted (CSD A7). alphaChimp laudare 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Space In Time

Attempted speedy that the author removed without comment. The article has expanded a bit since then, but is still about a non-notable local band who have yet to release an album. Opabinia regalis 06:06, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Tenney

Individual is non-notable. Article was created to promote non-noteable organization known as Leaders of East Orlando. As you can see by the red link in this article, that article was already deleted. Creator of this article then created an article called East Orlando which is also up for afd review. Delete. Stubbleboy 06:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Also please note that this article has been edited by a user named User:JohnTenney. While this is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy, editing biographies about oneself is considered a Faux pas by the creator of Wikipedia User:Jimbo Wales [14] Stubbleboy 06:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity article. User already has a user page. Gazpacho 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity. — ERcheck (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity article. Subject is not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:44, 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 redirect to NWA: Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling -- Samir धर्म 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperGirls Title

Non-notable wrestling championship Lid 06:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What are the determining factors for whether or not a wrestling championship is notable? VWG
  • Being apart of a notable organisation to begin with for one, which this one doesn't meet. --- Lid 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So even though ECCW's been around 10 plus years, it doesn't count for notable? Does that mean that basically the only title histories that should be posted are ones like WWE, WCW, ECW, Mid South, etc? Where's the line drawn for indy feds? VWG
  • If you want to make this a debate about the notability of federations please note that the actual deletion is that the title itself is not notable. Never been lost on a SuperGirls show, new promotion, it doesn't need a histories page. --- Lid 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3XW Wrestling

Non-notable wrestling organisation. Also up for deletion are 3XW Heavyweight Championship, 3XW North American Championship, 3XW Cruiserweight Championship, 3XW Women's Championship and 3XW Tag Team Championship Lid 06:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per norm. Is not notable. Angelbo 21:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Most every fed's had some big names drift through at some time, but the article has no sources and no indication of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:53, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Bockman

Listed as still under construction, but as it stands already, doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nomination. This character has 98 Ghits, only 24 unique. I have established that indeed he writes: New York Times carried 3 letters he wrote, Science News 1 letter. Clicking on links to what appear to be scholarly texts come up as dead ends (no appearances of "Bock" on the pages in question) and the link summary indicates he may have participated as research assistant. He seems to have a piece entitled "Fishing practice" in "Boys Like Us", but this 1996 publication by Avon books is not ranked in Amazon (and no credit to him). I have supported deletion of people with a greater number of significant articles than this person. No sign of his writing; He is a gay activist, but a pretty minor one on both counts. 3Ghits for Goldfein Award of which 1 for Wiki, another for aperson who claims to have won it, and one for Penn University for their Jewish studies programs. Clicking deeper reveals no "Bockman" on the list of winners going back to 2000. Ohconfucius 04:20, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Caldwell

Also listed as under construction still, but also doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep — Seems notable enough to me Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. The subject scores 186 Ghits for "Ron Caldwell" + writer. Included among the results are a Biology professor at Lincoln memorial, a Vice President of Mining Association of British Columbia, and Sports Editor at Desoto Times. In the majority of cases, where this Ron Calder's name comes up in the very few quality links (ie not blogs, message boards, etc), except for his bio on Parsons School of Design are in connection with his piece in "Boys like us", a 1996 book published by Avon and not ranked by Google. Ohconfucius 04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Phillips

Also listed as still under construction, but also seems to be insufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Clearly notable. Lots of awards. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Several published works, 32 thousand google hits for ["Carl Phillips" poet], cited by numerous articles. Clearly notable. Wjhonson 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Meets WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo Θ 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough publications and awards. Dlyons493 Talk 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just looking down the AfD list - is Nlu focusing on Gay writers? Dlyons493 Talk 11:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In this case, I was cleaning up old {{underconstruction}} links, and came up on a group of (what I felt) were insufficiently attested authors. You can't seriously look at the states of the articles previously and say that they had, as written, sufficient notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I was just wondering where the group had appeared from. That explains it, thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - I admit I made some quick entries in a few cases, just to start the ball rolling. Some of the people are actually quite notable, others are maybe... questionable. I was just trying to get the info I had out there, so others could expand it. Some of these could stand a lookup in Gale's Authors online, I just haven't gotten around to it. Wjhonson 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Appears to be sufficiently notable to stave off a delete vote for me, but I would question TruthbringerToronto's assertion that he has won "lots of awards": I count 3. Ohconfucius 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per most everyone. RFerreira 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Wong

Also questionable notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Book out published by Random House. He gets thousands of google hits. Wjhonson 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I don't think he's all that notable, with only 616 Ghits as "Norman wong" + writer. However, appears to satisfy WP:BIO for inclusion (see his page on Random House). His book published in 1995 is has an Amazon rank in the 1.2millionth. Ohconfucius 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Merla

Appears to be more notable than the ones above, but still not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Patrick Merla and his publications are cited to by hundreds of other publications. He himself gets ten thousand google hits. All for him. He was perhaps the most well-known gay person in the US for over a decade. Wjhonson 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nomination. 842 Ghits for "Patrick Merla" + writer, a majority pointing to book sites and/or concerning the book "Boys like us" (1995 book by Avon with no Amazon rank). "Tales of Patrick Merla" scores in the 4 millionth per Amazon. Subject is apparently winner of a Lambda Literary Award in 1996 for this book. Note that he was Editor of this compilation of essays, and that over 100 books win a literary award from this organisation each year. Ohconfucius 06:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep authors with books published by non-vanity presses, especially ones with multiple books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 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 deleted as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelique Johnson

Article gives no claim to notability. Pretty much the only statement is that she is the sister of Derrick J. Johnson, whose page was recently AfD'd itself. A Google search for "Angelique Johnson" produces 251 unique hits, and almost none of them appear to be relevant, and she almost certainly does not pass WP:BIO. -Elmer Clark 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — per nom - non-notable. Kalani [talk] 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. Fails BIO. SynergeticMaggot 12:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrenaline Unleashed

Non-notable wrestling organisation, reads like an advertisement. Lid 07:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, NN and reads like an advertisement. TJ Spyke 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to read to delete one wrestling promotion article because it's not notable then you might as well delete the other non notable ones as well. Instead of bitching about what's wrong with the article, try and help fix it. Mr. C.C. 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Other non-notable feds are nominated, if you see any that shouldn't have a page then you can nominate them too. TJ Spyke 06:10, 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 Redirect to Abeer Qassim Hamza.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambir Hamsa

This article was flagged for speedy. I thought that I should bring the article here since some people have suggested that murder victims are not in general notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable, since the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper stories. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Murder victims are not inherently notable. While this may be true in this case, the crime certainly is notable and the name of the victim seems the most appropriate title for the article. Having said that, this article desperately needs expanded. --IslaySolomon 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is true, article about non notable murder victim. So it should be deleted. Crime itself might be notable. So new article need to be written. If this article is about crime - then title is wrong and completely misleading. So it should be renamed - but if you will bother to read it - you will notice that at a current state it is about boy, not about crime itself. TestPilot 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Truth Bakaman Bakatalk 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete First. Someone should provide source information. Google don't know any web pages about that boy(Ambir Hamsa). Second. The whole article information - the boy with name Ambir Hamsa happend to become a victim of a crime. There thouthands of such articles could be created each and every day. TestPilot 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regrettable incident which brings the US armed forces into disrepute, but does not qualify for inclusion per WP:BIO, which clearly states "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage". Also the subject is a 14 year old Iraqi girl who would be otherwise not notable, so the article will probably remain a stub forever. However, the subject of American war crimes perpetrated in Iraq could warrant an article, as there have been a few of these. Ohconfucius 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is a duplicate of Abeer Qassim Hamza. Possibly retain as a redirect from misspelling (or alternate spelling) to that article. Fairsing 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Abeer Qassim Hamza as it is the same subject. Lincher 13:13, 25 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 now that the information has been merged in to the newspaper article-proper.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stony Brook Press Comics Section

An article about the comics section of a student-produced college newspaper. Non-notable and listcruft. Tinlinkin 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NN and WP:NFT ST47 11:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Stony Brook Press. Thε Halo Θ 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, student newspaper comics are unencyclopedic unless they are of some historical significance (the early works of successful cartoonists, etc.) -- Dragonfiend 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I merged the list into the newspaper article, but I still believe this article should be deleted. Tinlinkin 10:35, 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 Merged in to The Stony Brook Press.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha, NE (Comic)

Article about a comic strip within a student newspaper. Only notable to those who read Not notable outside the context of The Stony Brook Press, and for the limited time it was published in the newspaper. Tinlinkin 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Mooble, or: the Rise and Fall of Modern Logic (Comic) is also nominated for the reason above. Tinlinkin 07:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NN and WP:NFT ST47 11:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Stony Brook Press. Thε Halo Θ 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge seems a fair decision. Nlsanand 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If this decision comes to Merge (which I so far disagree with), I'll live with that, but College Boyz (Comic) was deleted earlier for non-notability and was one of the comics listed in The Stony Brook Press Comics Section. Also for precedent, Ask Amberly Jane had an AfD review and the result was delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Amberly Jane) Tinlinkin 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, there would be no reason to merge unless these were newspaper strips of some historical significance. The Stony Brook Press article should not list or describe every student comic it has ever published. For example, I could see Steve Breen being mentioned in the article on his college newspaper, but not these. -- Dragonfiend 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge If it is exclusive to The Stony Brook Press --Kisai 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above. Xuanwu 03:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I have overstated the notability of these comics. Searches on Yahoo! and Google for 'mooble david ginn' and 'omaha "Steph Hayes"' turned up only the Wikipedia article for the relevant results. Anyway, I have merged the information from these articles into The Stony Brook Press, but I still think they should be deleted. Tinlinkin 10:32, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Westphal

An article about a 5-time Jeopardy! winner. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable, unless he should win the next Tournament of Champions. Tinlinkin 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NN ST47 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, or create a list of 5+ Jeopardy champs and merge Westphal's info into it. Just think, if he was a minor Survivor contestant, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --CharlotteWebb 14:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Survivor has 16 contestants a season; Jeopardy! has over 400. Minor contestants on Jeopardy! do not get thrust into the public limelight; minor contestants on Survivor are. I implore you to rethink your reasoning based upon this information. Andy Saunders 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Most contestants on traditional game shows like Jeopardy receive a lot less public attention than most contestants on reality shows like Survivor; there are a few exceptions but Westphal does not appear to be one of them. --Metropolitan90 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds like the very definition of systemic bias. --CharlotteWebb 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Both Survivor and Jeopardy! are U.S. television shows and accessible to the same viewers. But the content of Survivor is much more focused on the personalities of the contestants relative to Jeopardy!, which focuses more on the answers/questions, which is why more Survivor contestants get asked to appear on other television shows or appear in movies than Jeopardy! contestants. If we had articles about contestants on Survivor but refused to include articles about contestants on Chinese reality shows of similar relative popularity, that would be systemic bias. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps then, this has more to do with the difference beween notability and importance. Presumably the first contestant to get voted off the sunny island of [wherever] appears in one, maybe two, episodes, and doesn't win a penny, yet somehow he's more culturally significant than a 5-time Jeopardy champion? Maybe so, but it ain't right. --CharlotteWebb 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Technically, all Survivor contestants are supposed to get a consolation prize in increasing value from the time they were voted off (wish I could say the same for America's Got Talent), but, of course, that's beside the point. One reason I voted this article for deletion was because there seems to be no precedent for including articles about Jeopardy! non-tournament winners and minor record holders. But I have since found Tom Walsh and Brian Weikle, and their AfDs: Tom Walsh's AfD resulted in "no consensus" and Brian Weikle's AfD resulted in "merge". Perhaps I would now call merge for this article. (I am not withdrawing this nom at this point.) How Westphal could be merged, I don't know, but it would likely be in the upcoming Tournament of Champions. Tinlinkin 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Tinlin, Both Brian Weikle and Tom Walsh were record holders at one point; they held the regular season winnings record on the show for a time. Westphal, on the other hand, did not. Andy Saunders 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks for clarifying that. Even more reason that he's not notable Tinlinkin 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable outside of jeopardy. DrunkenSmurf 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; Craig Westphal is hardly notable inside the Jeopardy! canon, let alone outside of it. Andy Saunders 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andy Sanuders. Five-time winners are hardly a new thing. Ral315 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given above. Wesmills 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 20:26, 24 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)  15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi Imfurst

An alter ego that does not appear to be particularly notable and the actor playing her does not appear to justify his own article. A case of the tail wagging the dog? Spartaz 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mimi is an established perfomer. Anyone googling her name would notice the stir she has created. This article is very simular to the list of drag queens subarticles created. GothamKid 03:39, 21 August 2006
  • Keep as nom --GothamKid 03:39, 21 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as an entirely non-notable band. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliottfuckingsmith

Delete - entirely non-notable band or it appears that way to me Charlesknight 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about being on fire

This page is a stupid, useless, pointless list with no purpose and as such needs to be deleted Aussie King Pin 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvador Martinez Cruz

Weird article about a young mexican engineer. The article is in bad need of copy-editing but I don't think we should bother: there are a total of 3 Ghits for "Salvador Martinez Cruz" including the Wikipedia entry of course. The references given in the article barely mention his name. The content is badly POV (the last sentence is "Thanks Salvador and continue making history"!) and one might suspect vanity given the creators nickname Ing cibernetica (talk · contribs) (the name of the engineering program that Martinez studied in). Pascal.Tesson 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it is hardly even in english... ST47 11:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article is pretty unclear and confusing, but from what I can gather from it (and google, just 7 unique hits) he's not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. His Ants and Grandfather were his only family :-) Dlyons493 Talk 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 13:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Pathlessdesert 15:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-PC compatible x86 computers

Unsourced, non-encyclopedic essay, inappropriate tone. Quale 10:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 11:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Not very searchable either. --IslaySolomon 12:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay. -- Whpq 12:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — This seems like a university computer science class research paper, and could probably be turned into a pretty good article, but, as is placed on the header - there are no citations or sources whatsoever. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 21:53, 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 keep, though consensus backs that clearly on the basis that the previous AfD was so recent. Mangojuicetalk 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Finnerty

No consensus was reached on the blanket nomination here, so relisting individually. County political offices do not pass WP:BIO, and no assertion of notability beyond council membership had been made. Article has not seen any activity from it's creation in March until it was brought up for AfD, so chances of it's expansion are slim. DarkAudit 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. As with the Sue Schilling AfD, can I politely suggest that as a genuine show of good faith this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No consensus was reached, and no effort has really been made to improve the article. The article as it is has been that way since March. That's plenty of time. DarkAudit 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 38 minute period (check article history) before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply Five months is plenty of time. The article sat untouched until the AfD. And then it was still untouched. DarkAudit 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, as per comments at Sue Schilling. Catchpole 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder), the result of which was keep. Accurizer 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That is not the article under discussion. I might also add no effort whatsoever was made to expand that article, in spite of the claims of notability 'on Google'. DarkAudit 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The 'keep' for Joe Kelly is based on the results of a google search, none of which was brought up in either the AfD or the article in question. I therefore have reason to doubt the verdict of the AfD as entirely valid. The other two were not ruled 'keep', so I take the 'no consensus' as no decision. The articles in question still do not pass WP:BIO. The keep arguments are based on the rapid renomination, and not on the merits of the articles. DarkAudit 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, alphaChimp laudare 11:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per Alansohn. TestPilot 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Those who qualify as notable per WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature". The subject is a county official, and as I understand it is not even remotely close to that and would appear not to satisfy the criterion above, notwithstanding articles covering those holding similar positions who have survived AfD. There appear to be few other critera for his inclusion as notable. What is more, it appears that the sbject was not elected but merely appointed to fill a vacancy. Ohconfucius 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The additions to the page are still local positions that do not meet WP:BIO. A county officeholder does not meet the standards for political office, and there has still not been any assertions of notability beyond the local offices or 'significant press coverage' that would rise to the standards set forth in WP:BIO. The keep arguments are for the timing of the renomination. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia standards. DarkAudit 19:23, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Murphy (reporter)

Local traffic reporter. Fails WP:BIO quite clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars 2007

Single sentence article, about a video game in production that doesn't cite any sources, delete as crystal ball. Megapixie 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thε Halo Θ 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced crystal ball statement, and even if a press release or something is found I doubt there'd be enough info at this time to write an article. BryanG(talk) 16:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 11:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, we're not a crystal ball. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- I think a reference to this game should be made on another article (star wars games?) and that star wars 2007 should redirect there, the game does exist, just look here: [[15]] hexhunter 17:45 22/8/06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Citizens Watch

This is a procedural relisting, the page was restored after a contested WP:PROD deletion. Original prod reason was "Non-notable fringe site, fails WP:WEB". Delete unless independent sources show that the site meets WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 12:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment' here is notability: "The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demand the resignation of Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission." - New York Times, 3/20/2004 mirror --Striver 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just added a source from Zogby. Zogby + NYT = notable.--Striver 13:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "911citizenswatch.org" gets 35 100 Ghits, 256 unique. --Striver 13:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, found this on Scoop --Striver 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way, this is not priamrily a website, so WP:WEB is not applicable.--Striver 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence whatever that anyone other than the members and author have heard of the organization. The references inside the article are to fact claims and to already-convinced groups. Furthermore, the report "will be released" in the future. Let's wait to see how much of a ripple that makes before we explain this group to an incurious world. Geogre 14:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Report already released, see article again. The Christian Science Monitor refering to it: [16] --Striver 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Two time congresswoman Cynthia McKinney participiated in their event. --Striver 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --BaronLarf 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So, that is a keep? Nom says "unless independent sources show [notability]", and it has done that for the group. --Striver 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Just added a PBS source. --Striver 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And C-Span. Can we have a speedy keep, notability is no longer a question.--Striver 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ST47 16:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom Artw 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Washington Times also added. Do i smell bias? --Striver 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
All I see is this Kyle Hence guy occasionally manaeuvering himself into a position where he;s able to give a jopurnalist a tiny quote. I'm not particularly impressed by that as proof of notability for the organisation. Artw 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — per Striver Computerjoe's talk 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Striver. Full of delicious reliable sources now. Drett 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with user Drett. Angelbo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - enough sources to live with, with mentions in major dailies and the piece in the CSM that gives a fair amount of copy to the group. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gazpacho 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Striver. —Michael Hays 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with multiple, independent mentions in major media. Fairsing 04:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This organization is one of the key early organizations in the 9/11 Truth movement and continues to be a strong contributor - notable and historical. bov 23:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popup generator

This is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Prodded by User:BCube. Deprodded by anonymous IP address 212.36.9.150. The author has made many contributions to wikipedia which point to his own websites and tout the benefits of his product (unblockable pop-up ads). There is no useful information in this article that is not already covered in Popup ad. Delete Ben 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete looks like promotion for a single product, along with 3 links to the same website. The ads themselves and techniques used to create them are covered in Popup ad and elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:SPAM and WP:VANITY ST47 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citihomes

Article created by a new user also called Citihomes, fails WP:CORP. The only assertion of notability is a single Atlanta Journal-Constitution article (judging from the free summary, not solely about this company). Prod removed by author without comment. —Celithemis 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP, with non-multiple independent references. <Marginally humorous remark expunged>. -- MyWikiBiz 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MyWikiBiz ST47 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion of a (local) business. Dennette 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable local business, regardless of who wrote the article. Fan-1967 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as another NN business, and possibly spam too. - Blood red sandman 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Fleming

Bio page about a local musician; has already been removed once before JPG-GR 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment First deletion was a nonsense article with no content, not same as this one. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on WP:BIO, this article does not qualify for inclusion. JPG-GR 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 20:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Celebrity news

dicdef DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Yamla 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT a dictionary ST47 15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a dictionary article about a word or a phrase. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about a type of news that exists in journalism. The appropriate question, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is whether it is possible for this stub to be expanded into a real article. Uncle G 16:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — dicdef SynergeticMaggot 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — A dicdef that is not enough to stand as its own article. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:05, 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 deleted by User:Rogerd under CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Isla

This page was originally created by myself as the subject of the article was listed on the page for the band "The metronomes". The page for the band has now been deleted, according to the deletion log because it was not noteworthy. I therefore assume this band member is not noteworthy either - discus. Blood red sandman 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD GC7 ST47 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per above. 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — per db-bio. SynergeticMaggot 22:59, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tribalizing America

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 38 hits (20 unique) on Google searching for "Tribalizing America" "Ifezue Okoli". -Elmer Clark 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - what is the importance of the Forbes Book Club? According to them, it appears to be outsourced to Eagle Book clubs who are in the business of running book clubs, and probably do the seleciton based on some general guidance from the custmer. -- Whpq 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Has relevance in some national circles. Nickieee 07:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which circles? The article doesn't seem to make any such claim. -Elmer Clark 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Gazpacho ST47 15:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity press. Only claim to notability seems to be Forbes Book Club, who outsource to Eagle Book clubs who seem to be owned by Eagle Publishing and run by a subsidiary REGNERY PUBLISHING considered by many America's leading conservative publishing companym so it seems intrinsically POV (and also pretty non-notable) Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 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 a lack of consensus. The article will be kept. --  Denelson83  21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artbyus

Nominate for DELETE because the article was created by someone related to the subject, fails WP:CORP, and contains spam links. -- MyWikiBiz 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why would you delete this because "someone related to the subject" wrote this? This article is based on facts. The links where placed because one of the Wikipedia admins asked to reference the facts. I can take the links out again. This page is as important as for example Squidoo - which is in Wikipedia for a long time. I guess you are not related to the art world. ArtByUs.com is a key art auction site on the Internet. USA Today is about to print a big article on this subject. It will include ArtByUs.com as well. --Ptogel 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you to ScottDavis for cleaning up the article. --Ptogel 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just reading through the rules. They say: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." With artiicles and reports on TV, newspapers, magazines and business journals, this should fit. By now, all the "vanity" is also deleted. --Ptogel 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest of weak keeps (edit conflict) Although I do not like the WP:VSCA aspect to this article, its coverage gives it borderline notability and everything in the article can be verified. I tried to clean it up by taking out some of the more vanity-laden parts. (It was touching that the author included a letter to the founder of the company from George W. Bush for example). JChap2007 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The George W. Bush letter was included because one of the editors wanted to see proof that the founders art is in the collection of a US President. It was not in the original article. Most of the links where intruduced because editors asked for proof. It was not my choice. --Ptogel 17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't equate sending a painting to Bush and getting a form letter in return with "being in his collection." The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. ;-) JChap2007 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this is not what happened. But why should I expain more. This is the wrong place to discuss it.--Ptogel 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JChap2007 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This was the public letter. We do not have the rights to publish the other documents. They are kept private.--Ptogel 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And deeper, and deeper Ptogel digs, professing that he/she/it is not Conni Togel's son/daughter/husband/partner. To resolve the issue of "who cares" if someone related to the subject creates articles, see: Wikipedia:Autobiography, which says, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." -- MyWikiBiz 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Go, delete what you want. I don't waste 12 hours for something like that. I was just told by ArtByUs LLC to not support Wikipedia. They also told be that they withdraw the usage of their logo for the usage on Wikipedia. So you win. Go for it. --Ptogel 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep number two of anything is likely to be notable in its field. This nomination appears to be partly motivated to make a point over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies. The article has been cleaned up a lot over the last 14 hours. The motivation of the author to create the article should not be a consideration on whether to keep it. It just needs other editors to help maintain neutrality. --Scott Davis Talk 03:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, the motivation for nomination deserves scrutiny, but the motivation for creating a spam-link fiesta (we have seen the ironies mentioned above) does not? Just so you know, I am the the #2 fastest 400-yard sprinter from the 1977 Grade Three class at Dibble Elementary School in Jackson, Michigan. That's notable? Looking at Alexa.com [17] it actually appears that Artbyus.com is the #1 art auction site now (maybe thanks to spam linking), but the site is averaging maybe 10-12 visitors PER MILLION. That's right up there with AskANinja.com. No, wait. That's TEN TIMES LESS than AskANinja.com. -- MyWikiBiz 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I thought Norman Technologies should have been deleted, and I didn't say Artbyus in its original form was good. One mistake doesn't justify others to establish a pattern. The issues behind NT are what led me here to clean up this article. I'd say it's hard for people close to a subject to be able to write an NPOV article. If they can overcome that, they are usually better positioned to find the right references. And I don't claim a JPEG of a newsclipping on the subject's website is as close to a reliable source as the article on the newspaper's website would be. This article has had a lot of the cruft trimmed out now. --Scott Davis Talk 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Appears to meet WP:CORP but not sure if it meets WP:WEB and if that is a reason to delete since WP:CORP may not apply. Vegaswikian 18:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFK II: The Bush Connection

Co nomination with The Assassination of JFK JR: Murder by Manchurian Candidate. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Notability has been a discussed on its talk page for a while, with explainations for its high google hit. The JPStalk to me 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Note that I'm one of the folks who overhauled this article to make it somewhat more neutral, and I'm the one who started the debate over its notability. I'm happy to see it go away on the basis of non-notability, on the one hand. On the other hand, I'm concerned that someone's going to come along and write a new article in a few months, and chances are that it won't be nearly as neutral as what we have now (not that there aren't still flaws in the article, and perhaps even some I introduced). -Harmil 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If deleted I'll keep it on my watchlist, then if someone does recreate it it can be speedied as G4. The JPStalk to me 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TestPilot 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, some schoolteacher with a theory. By the way, anyone want to take a stab at cleaning up Zapata Corporation? Gazpacho 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Yikes! Violates WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent reliable evidence of notability is provided. This doesn't appear to be anything except a self-published conspiracy theory. Gamaliel 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: An apparently valid article, targeted for deletion simply because of its pov, should not be deleted simply on fabricated pretexts. Ombudsman 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: it should be noted that POV is not the primary reason for wanting this article deleted. The primary concern is that of notability. -Harmil 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per lack of notability. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its evidence isn't backed by anything except itself. Need independent sourcing, especially of the memo from 1963. August 22 2006
  • Delete NN, Per nom. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of work went into this, the movie is much more notable than a lot of other vanity rubbish we have as stubs. I suspect this article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter. PizzaMargherita 05:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Preposterous nonsense and cruft.--MONGO 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. SkeenaR 09:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassination of JFK JR: Murder by Manchurian Candidate

Co nomination with JFK II: The Bush Connection. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). The JPStalk to me 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK II: The Bush Connection, but a bit stronger becuase I haven't worked on this article. -Harmil 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Surely whether you have worked on it or not is completely irrelevant here. PizzaMargherita 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, some schoolteacher with a theory. BU$H!!!!! Gazpacho 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Can you say "Cruft"? Why is Wikipedia such a collector of non-notable pinheaded conspiracy nuts? Violates WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent reliable evidence of notability is provided. This doesn't appear to be anything except a self-published conspiracy theory. Gamaliel 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wait...this was during George W Bush's re-election campaign? Bush wasn't even president in '99! His father lost in '92, so it wasn't him. What in the hell? Wildthing61476 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per lack of notability. (not available on IMDB --Aude (talk contribs) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, where are these coming from? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per twin nomination. PizzaMargherita 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. SkeenaR 09:37, 25 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)  14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borda fixed point

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep — Well sourced Martinp23 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Martinp23. It doesn't seem to be original research. --HResearcher 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks legit, is well sourced. A notable statistical topic. Rohirok 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Delete per Jitse Niesen. Looks can be deceiving. Without a peer-reviewed publication, this is not encyclopedia-worthy. Rohirok 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that it's probably not original research, but I don't think it's very notable either. According to Talk:Borda fixed point, nobody other than the author has commented on the proposed voting system. That indicates that it's not notable. It definitely makes it hard to write a balanced article about it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, talk page shows that it's self-promotion in violation of WP:NOT. Gazpacho 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion. Those who are willing to accept the "sources" at face value should read the talk page. Also note that the first two links are dead (and I doubt they correspond to anything ever published on paper) and the last two are self-published by the writer of the article. However, for full disclosure, I am not neutral; the author, User:Colignatus, was permablocked for making personal threats against me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked into it a bit. The first two links seem to lead to a now defunct preprint server, similar to the arXiv. The last two links are books published by Dutch University Press. I don't know this publisher, but it is not affiliated with any Dutch university as far as I can tell. I did not find evidence that any of these publications are peer-reviewed. Hence, I think they are not reliable sources and that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Jitse Niesen's comments about reliable sources. --HResearcher 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep One of the sources is from Project Gutenberg, and I don't think they publish just anybody. Septentrionalis 07:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Project Gutenberg's concern is whether the text is public domain. It is a library, not a refereed journal. It doesn't do any peer review or fact checking. Uncle G 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jitse Niesen; it's either WP:OR or failure of WP:V due to the lack of coverage by people other than the original author about this topic. --Kinu t/c 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jitse Niesen. JPD (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addicted (Kelly Clarkson song)

This is nothing but unsourced speculation, and has been for months; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It has been turned into a redirect to the appropriate album article several times, but it keeps being recreated. Extraordinary Machine 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redirect - At the moment it fails Wikipedia:Notability (songs), and has so little content anyway. The JPStalk to me 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT ST47 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. wikipediatrix 16:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as speculation, tag with {{deletedpage}} and protect until such time as the single is released.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Page has been edited to include that the song is not going to be a single, and thusly, the page should not be there at all. Pandaki 17:18, 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. – Avi 06:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United faith ministries

This page is about a non notable organization that doesn't even appear on google all save for the organizations own website Jaedza 08:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC) yes it does show up on google under the names unitedfaithministries and unitedfaithministries.com here is the google link google search results for unitedfaithministries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.73.62 (talk • contribs) . Jaedza 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note I was searching for it as "United faith ministries" as three words not as "unitedfaithministries" as one word. I believe that people tend to search using the former rather than the latter, however, I may be wrong. Jaedza 13:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NN and noting that of 13 yahoo hits(yes, that google link goes to yahoo...), 6 lead to yahoo, 2 to the same tripod site, and two to the website in question. ST47 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like Reverend High Priestess J.Cavender is just promoting her own "ministry". Dennette 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable; fails WP:V due to lack of reliable sources providing third-party coverage of this ministry; contribution history confirms this is also WP:VANITY. --Kinu t/c 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • i sent a email requesting that the page and my login be removed i did not mean to do any thing that i was not suposed to do. i was not trying to promote it but add some history to it. from this day foward i do not want my site to ever be listed here and if it is please remove it and ban the person who lists it. thank you very much R.H.P.J.C. (oops i put this in the wrong place sorry) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highpriestess (talk • contribs) . Jaedza 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That count as a speedy delete, author request? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like it to me. So tagged. --Kinu t/c 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin R Nicholl

Non-notable academic Sam Clark 14:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:BIO ST47 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Book published by a quite selective scholarly publisher, Cambridge University Press. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since he is an assistant professor, it's unlikely that he is more notable than the average professor. See WP:PROFTEST. --Metropolitan90 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. -AED 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The book is part of a series of monographs. This sounds like the type a work an academe produces to meet his publication requirements. I can't see that it satisfies WP:PROF. :) Dlohcierekim 02:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could make almost exactly the same claim for notability - I've also got a book coming out in a monograph series from a selective academic publisher. So have a couple of my friends. But that doesn't make us notable, it just makes us ordinary junior academics. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone who is driven to fillling up space by listing their academic qualifications really hasn't done much to change the world. I accept that we keep pretty much any institution that gives out degrees (although I have views on that), but it is too much to give every guy who sloped through a PhD and gets a cheque from a non-entity bible college their own Wikipedia article.Legis 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinlas

This unsourced article was originally blanked with an edit summary indicating it was a hoax. I reverted that and the editor indicated to me that it really is a hoax but apparently does not know the workings of the deletion process. A problem here is that the article has been up for about nine months and a google search [18] reveals many sites with the information. As far as I can tell all of those sites fork the information from this article or from List of Greek mythological figures where the name was added in by an ip whose only edit was that addition (see this diff [19]).

Some other hoax circumstantial evidence is provided by the fact that Greek city of "Lamark" mentioned in the article links to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and I can find no confirmation of that city's existence through Google [20]. Accordingly, I suggest this article be deleted as a suspected hoax and as unverifiable unless and until someone with expertise in Greek mythology provides some confirmation. Note to closing administrator: If this article is deleted, the information in List of Greek mythological figures should be contemporaneously removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:HOAX ST47 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • L'Emprière's makes no mention of either one. This is unverifiable, and with the link mentioned, the removed content about prime numbers (see the older versions of the article), and the redirect from User:Dingler (the article's main author), has all of the appearance of a hoax. Delete. Uncle G 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:HOAX ... all of the Google results are derived from this article. Dennette 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I originally identified this as a hoax for several reasons: the story-line does not have a classical "feel"; the names Dinlas and Lamark do not have the usual Greek name-suffixes; there is no mention of the character in the thorough multi-volume Dictionary of Classical Biography and Myth (Smith), including under entries of other gods which appear in the proposed story; and finally there is no ancient city named Lamark or anything similar. The entry must either be a hoax or the writer of the article obtained it from the work of some obscure modern fiction writer. Theranos 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. GregorB 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not such Greek city or god. --Aduitsis 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as original research. Verifiability is not established. The references that are substantiated are a non peer-reviewed publication by Warren Smith, a NY Times reference and a technical report from UNC; this is insufficient for a statistical term to be considered verifiable. -- Samir धर्म 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayesian regret

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:OR ST47 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, in addition to this and this, which admittedly both have Smith as their origin, it turns out that there are other things known as Bayesian regret. Uncle G 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, unless someone more expert in the field suggests a place to merge it. This seems legit. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete reluctantly. Seems perfectly legit but not sufficiently widely used yet to avoid the OR tag. Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author has to reference sources besides himself. It's not in Bayesian inference. The author says it is a term from Voting system theory but it is not mentioned there. Nor in Social welfare function (social utility) he links to in his article. The New York Times article is playing around with names of theorums -- not "terms" as this article's creater says. And if he is talking about a theorum with a history, then why isn't the history described? Besides, what he has written in this article isn't different from a vague description of Bayesian statistics in general. GBYork 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The author says it is a term from Voting system theory but it is not mentioned there. — See the two pages that I linked to above. Uncle G 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and probably merge). This definition (from Uncle G) is quite general, and unconnected with Smith. Septentrionalis 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm the author of the article, in no way connected with Smith (as I mentioned on the talk page when I created it, please read the talk page before you accuse me of WP:AUTO.). I am also not an advocate of range voting. I read Smith's article and found it notable. Nobody could call me Smith's sock-puppet, given that I edit from Guatemala and have contributed to WP:MESO. --Homunq 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Just included the references above in the article. I know that I didn't use a very standard reference format but I'm not sure what to use. As the article stands, it may not meet the standard of notable (though I think yes) but it is clearly not OR. --Homunq 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)*
  • Keep This is the famous Warren Smith, whose name seems so bandied about herein without anybody consulting me about it of course. I think this article is more or less right, probably will get better, and is a useful and widely known concept in the statistics and voting methods worlds. In addition to me using BR in 3 papers on comparing voting methods, the term has been used in, e.g.

Title: The sample complexity of exploration in the multi-armed bandit problem Author(s): Mannor S, Tsitsiklis JN Source: JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH 5: 623-648 JUN 2004

Title: The sample complexity of exploration in the multi-armed bandit problem Author(s): Mannor S, Tsitsiklis JN Source: JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH 5: 623-648 JUN 2004

Title: Asymptotic global robustness in Bayesian decision theory Author(s): Abraham C, Cadre B Source: ANNALS OF STATISTICS 32 (4): 1341-1366 AUG 2004

Title: Worst-case bounds for the logarithmic loss of predictors Author(s): Cesa-Bianchi N, Lugosi G Source: MACHINE LEARNING 43 (3): 247-264 JUN 2001

Title: ONE-ARMED BANDIT PROBLEMS WITH COVARIATES Author(s): SARKAR J Source: ANNALS OF STATISTICS 19 (4): 1978-2002 DEC 1991

Title: A BAYESIAN-APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING UNDER AMBIGUITY Author(s): DOBBS IM Source: ECONOMICA 58 (232): 417-44

Title: The “lob-pass” problem and an on-line learning model of rational choice ... Authors: Joe Kilian , Kevin J. Lang , Barak A. Pearlmutter, ... Source: COLT 93

Of course it could be that this list of 7 published papers dating back 15 years found in seconds by a search on the keywords "Bayesian regret" (several authors explicitly having included that in their keywords lists), is not sufficient evidence that the term is widely used. Perhaps it is necessary to provide an explicit list of 100 papers for that purpose. Since your standards are so incredibly high.

The idea probably dates back to Bayes himself, though I have not checked. It is quite amazing to me how self-appointed experts at wikipedia simply proclaim, without ever checking or citing a damned thing and without ever giving any specific argument whatever, that terms are "widely used" or not, or that articles are "original research" or whatever. User:WarrenDSmith 25 August 2006 (UTC)WarrenDSmith 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on ScienceDirect, zero hits in the Journal of Games and Economic Behavior, the term "Bayesian regret" appears exactly zero times in the cited papers by Bordley (1983), Merrill (1984) and Dobbs (1991). Seems like User:WarrenDSmith did a search on "Bayesian" and "regret" separately. I can't find any evidence that it has been established as a standing term in the scientific literature. As such, WP:NOR. ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I can't supply additional reasoning, I can confirm this is not mainstream statistics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


This is homunq, the article author, again. It is true that the references Smith gives are based on the separate (but clearly related) use of the two terms. (Also, he has no reason to complain about not being contacted, as I contacted him.) But Uncle G's references, now mentioned in the article, use them together.

My own position is that the single original Smith article, while clearly biased in its presentation, is a solid advancement of the field, and notable in its own right. All the other references, put together, only at best use the two terms together in a way that is more-or-less clear from their meaning separately, as such the joint term would barely merit a definition, let alone an encyclopedia entry. Yet the term's use as a voting-system criterion which, unlike other criteria in use, occupies an important position in between objective mathematical criteria and ill-defined subjective ones, in my opinion deserves a short entry. Nobody is claiming the article isn't NPOV or that it lacks references. I suspect that in a contentious field like this one the above-normal vigilance about NPOV may be coloring this argument unjustifiably. --Homunq 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the Smith pdf listed in the references. Since fwict it isn't even published yet, we can't even assess its impact via citation search. It is simply not our our job to assess the importance of a scientific contribution ourselves, that clearly falls under WP:NOR. It is our job to verify whether the contribution had an impact via outside sources. And since no one in the scientific community has picked up on Smith's definition we can't either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club Penguin

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through AfD in light of new evidence of increased notability since that time. Please see the DRV before commenting here. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. A note to interested editors: this article has a long history, including several recreations; I have reverted to the last reasonably long version, but superior edits might be found in the history. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:WEB ST47 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. As it is, it asserts but doesn't establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant youth phenomenonon along with other Mini-clip MMORPGs. I don't really wan to argue around WP:WEB, however the creator is NEw Interactive, the publisher, MIni-Clip, so it seems to meet 3. The game also has been awarded BBB OnLine Kid's Privacy Seal of Approval and Mini-Clip the Peoples Voice Webby Award for the best Games website (criteria 2). "Club penguin" has c. 122k google hits. Rich Farmbrough 09:33 21 August 2006 (GMT).
Note I have unprotected the article. I propose to tell the people who wondered on the talk page why it hafd been deleted that a new deletion debate has started, since they probably know more about CP than any of us. Rich Farmbrough 09:36 21 August 2006 (GMT).
Miniclip.com hosts hundreds of games. While having a game on it isn't 'trivial' in the way that having a game on Newgrounds is, being on Miniclip clearly isn't intrinsically notable. We don't need articles on Ride the Rapids or Sudoku, to name a couple on their front page. On the other hand, some of their games may stand out, in the way that RuneScape obviously does, and the way to demonstrate that is by showing that Club Penguin has received external coverage to a similar degree. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless external coverage is demonstrated. I've seen several versions of this that got deleted, and none have progressed above an advert, which it still is at time of writing (even though I restored this into someone's userspace so it could be worked on before it was moved back to articlespace). --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I hate Club Penguin, but as long as I have been visiting the Miniclip site, I have never, ever seen a game stay at #1 for even a quarter of the time that it has lasted. Not being a 7 year old, I can't really relate, but it must be some kind of phenomenon. Legis 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, is this documented anywhere except in the minds of 7-year-olds? ~ trialsanderrors 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that club penguin is probably the most idiotic website ever created, but my personal opinion does not change the fact that "club penguin" brings up 128,000 results on google and has not left the number 1 position on miniclip for quite a while now. The new article should not be an advertisement as previous ones were, but a well written entry that is written like the article on RunEscape. Warfwar3 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if it can be worked up to be as good as Final Fantasy XI, otherwise Delete talk to JD wants e-mail 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a few problems with the article, but they can be fixed.Hemhem20X6 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding rewriting, which sort of applies to the above three 'keep' arguments: given that this article has been deleted twice by AfD, and that I restored a version of this article into Warfwar3's userspace so he could work on it before restoration (which he doesn't seem to have done), it seems a bit late for "keep but verify, cleanup, rewrite, and generally put a completely different encyclopaedia article here" arguments. In particular, I would like someone to cite specific reliable sources showing that this is verifiable, as two AfDs and at least two deletion reviews haven't yet produced any. "I remember this being at #1 on Miniclip" doesn't count unless a reliable source took note of it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    I note there has been quite a lot of re-writing over the past two days. Rich Farmbrough 17:38 23 August 2006 (GMT).
  • Comment I mean that it needs copyediting. I already posted that on the page, so I am HOPING that other people will help too.Hemhem20X6 02:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive-Mafia

non notable spam. Spartaz 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article text is copied from the description of a different game named "After-Death" on this page: [21]. At least they should make up their own marketing piffle. - Richfife 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Cooper-42 00:40, 24 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abolfazl Hajizadeh et al

A slew of Iranian footballers (or footballers who play in one Iranian team). Originally correctly marked as speedy A7 - the articles do not assert an notability beyond the fact that they play football - but both AfD and DRV in the past has had questions about whether playing for a national league team = notability or not. I say not, so here they all come. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete I put the tags on. Personally a one line articles do not a notable person make. If they are notable they should contain much more information providing a context. If not, well I refer to my original speedy tag --Spartaz 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC), Looks like a pile on speedy keep for this lot. --Spartaz 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. They're notable players because of the level they play at. The articles are correctly flagged as stubs, and shouldn't be deleted on that basis. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If they're playing at IPL level - that's the top domestic league in Iran, they qualify as notable in my book, especially as a team of largely home-grown Iranian players qualified for the World Cup. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the IPL is a largely profesional league, and passes WP:BIO - fchd 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If they play at a national league level, they are notable. Iran's league is professional. Therefore, there is no reason to believe it is somehow substandard. In fact by saying so, it is an unfair judgement on the Iranian league. Don't just delete stuff because it is a one-line article. That is blaming the contributor for attempting to start an article on which there should be information. Nlsanand 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all The team most of these players represent (Persepolis FC) are eight times Iranian champions, regularly featuring in continental competitions such as the Asian Champions League, and recently played in a pre-season tournament involving Lazio and Wigan Athletic. [22] A Farsi speaker would have no trouble finding plenty of sources to expand these articles. At least one of these players (Badamaki) is an international [23]. Oldelpaso 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, playing in a top professional league in a country as large as Iran is enough to be notable. – Elisson • Talk 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, We have to remember that Wikipedia is read worldwide and not just by people from the UK. Few people from the UK will have an interest in Iranian league footballers, but then, few Iranians will care about UK soap stars and pop stars. These footballers will be celebrities in the Iran, regularly appearing on Iranian television, and may therefore be more famous worldwide than many UK celebrities listed on Wikipedia. Also, some of these players may have played in the 2006 World and would have been watched on television by 100s of millions of people. Epbr123 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These players are professionals and have proven notability. -- Alias Flood 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - as if they were US Baseball players, I'm sure no-one would mind. My I remind everyone of the problems with systematic bias we have? LinaMishima 13:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Professional footballers are notable per se. --Pkchan 14:53, 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 delete. WP:WEB is of relevance here, and no argument has been raised here to suggest that it is met. The suggestion that it kept only as an EL on Toyota MR2 is reasonable -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spyderchat

Contested deletion. Nominated as non-notable website. — ERcheck (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't appear very notable. --Spartaz 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The article itself needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot (No, inside humor is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is and shall always be on the outside looking in (sniff)), but there DOES appear to be a pretty active community on the site itself (there are literally hundreds of thousands of posts). That being said, a link on the central MR2 page is plenty. - Richfife 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree it needs to be edited but the site is one of the last active MR2 sites for info worldwide, and maybe the only active one left that is mainly centered about the MR2s in America. It is a good source of info for those 20-30k or so MR2 Sypder owners in America.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmorph (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP The article isn't that great, yet, but the subject matter, SpyderChat.com, is very noteworthy, as mentioned above by Mwmorph. Of the MR2 sites that have high traffic that I have managed to find, SC is the most encompassing site. Others are centered around particular geographic regions, byt SpyderChat is global. They have members and very active posters there from across the USA, the UK, many European countries (Greece, Finland, Spain, and more) and Asian countries (Thailand, Japan, etc.) as well. I grant that the article needs a major overhaul. I will take on part of the mantle for that now that I am aware of the WikiNeed. I've been at SC and Wiki for long enough; I feel capable enough to help its expansion. KEEP this article. VigilancePrime 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To me, the bigger issue issue is whether Wikipedia is better served by this page or the link that already exists on the MR2 page like so:
Surely a user looking for information on the MR2 will go to the MR2 page and then follow the link to SpyderChat from there. What purpose does a separate article serve? Thanks! - Richfife 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Same could be said of almost any article. Why read about IBM here when you can go to IBM.com and see for yourself? And Spyderchat is not the only MR2 forum, just (possibly) the largest, longest-running and/or most encompassing. ALL of Wikipedia is available from other sources. That's kindof the point anyway. VigilancePrime 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - An IBM article can (and presumably does) include information that the IBM website wouldn't. IBM is an organization with a culture and history of it's own. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and cede the point as the article is looking fairly presentable now. Changing vote to Keep - Richfife 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Another article (and AfD) that provides no outside sources to establish notability. Zero hits on Newsbank → add as external link to Toyota MR2. ~ trialsanderrors 00:56, 27 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)  12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media's Influence on Homosexual Perception

I'm not sure this really belongs in an encyclopedia, certainly not as its own article. It looks like a high-school student's homework. Maybe it has a place in homosexuality or stereotype, but not on its own. The information is good; the article is not. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Original Research is the biggy. - Richfife 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Opinion is no encyclopedic --Spartaz 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant violation of WP:OR. wikipediatrix 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Metthurst 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Dennette 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. - Richardcavell 05:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete essay. Gazpacho 17:18, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Young Rite

Gets no Google hits at all outside the organisation's own website. Doesn't meet any speedy criteria though (although I'd argue for WP:SNOW). ulayiti (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in church one day. "The Young Rite started with the consecration of bishop Markus van Alphen on 4 June 2006 by the bishops Johannes van Alphen, Mario Herrera Jorges and Benito Rodriguez Cruz using the rite of the Liberal Catholic Church." clear violation of WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No outside sources on this new religion yet and a disturbing overuse of the 2nd person plural. Isn't Vanity a sin? JChap2007 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The content has been updated and expanded on 21 August, removing the use of 2nd person plural. The consecration is indeed verifiable, have a look at The Liberal Catholic Church under the heading "Apost. succession" and follow the link "The van Alphen Succession (by seniority)". As regards Google hits, the group is quite new and has as yet received little publicity. This will change: For example, the Dutch name for the rite is "De Jonge Ritus", and is already referred to outside the organisation's own website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markusvanalphen (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

  • Comment. Wikipedia is not a device to get publicity for yourself. See also WP:AUTO for details on why you usually shouldn't write articles about yourself or organisations you're affiliated with. Once the organisation is significant enough (say, when it's been featured in a few articles in mainstream media and so) someone will probably create an article about it. - ulayiti (talk) 12:06, 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. Consensus is clear, closing before it becomes a cesspit. Just zis Guy you know? 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prequalified

Unverified, POV, and unsourced, it's a dictionary term (and actually in the past tense and not the proper "Prequalification"), and is yet another soapbox for WikiWoo to mouth off against the way Regional Municipalities in Ontario work. It's an attempt to recreate "Invited public tenders" which was AfDed (the "invited" is synonymous with "prequalified"), and which was already recreated and AfDed again as "Public tendering". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This nomination now also includes an identical article at Prequalification. JChap2007 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absurd POV faux dicdef. Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. --Daniel Olsen 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. I'm not crazy about his Public Procurement article either. wikipediatrix 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I hate the way censorship by corrdinated vandalism is applied here. I can't understand the motives of people claiming to be editors with the clear manifested purpose of keeping material off of publication. Too many people are eating off the system of systemic corruption of public systems which is most blaitant in the Corrupt Regional Government Structure of Ontario Canada. If you guys have a legitimate interest in improving Wiki you might what to edit wording than to delete elements of knowledge and information. Wiki is a colaborative project with many editors suposedly ADDING to the content. You guys going around taking stuff off is absurd faux editing and censoring.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. "Absurd POV faux dicdef" says it pretty well. WW, get a blog. Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. Fan-1967 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment All this talk of soapbox by people who are making wiki their soapbox. All information is valued and an improvement to Wiki. All censorship is BAD. You don't like the wording CHANGE IT DON'T DELETE IT - Coordinated Vandalims to delete content is not the proper way to edit content. Faux editing to censor information makes for a bad source of half truths and disinformation--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, I can't recall a single instance of Wikipedians and particularly admins being accused of censorship by anyone other than a tendentious editor. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - uncited, unverifiable, POV-laden article that, at its eventualist ideal, might end up defining a word. Destined to remain a soapbox platform if not deleted. --Gary Will 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Garywill and JzG. Note to WW: Please don't accuse other users of being vandals and try to remain civil. Srose (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Opinion dressed up as a dicdef. No reliable sources are provided. Articles need to contain information; if you want to do an article that contains/is about ranting, go here. JChap2007 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Put your POV somewhere else, please. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment So why don't you each make an edit to the piece and put your efforts into that? Wiki needs content not deletions. Or maybe you all feel Wiki has everything in it that it should ever have. Here's an idea, why not put your knowledge of what a prequalification is and what prequalified means. I bet a lot of Wiki readers have never heard of the term..--Wiki The Humble Woo 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Wikipedia needs encyclopedic content, not articles that POV-push, are unsourced and are soapbox-esque. Since you are the one who wants this article to stay, the burden rests on you to improve it and convince others that it should stay. Srose (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. CaliEd 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above comments. WikiWoo, please realize that everyone must follow the neutral point of view policy here. This is not NPOV. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    commentLooks like all the censors are out en mass on this one. What's important to me is that factual and intersting information gets published regardless how bad it makes people look. An encyclopedia is worthless if it only publishes positive rose coloured information. The world is a ying/yang and the good and evils need to be equaly documented and recorded as factual information. All this POV pushing serves no good purpose.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You have an issue with government officials that you continue to try and contest in entries here. Your point of view is obvious. If you have PUBLISHED SOURCES to put behind your claims, then dandy. If you do NOT have published sources, then you are pushing original research, and you are failing to follow policy, and your articles, edits, etc. will continue to be adjusted by people who are adhering to policy. This definition of prequalification is very much a negative approach, and the title is poor; if you're going to do a serious article about this, it should be under 'prequalification,' it should have actual reliable sources linked into the article, it should be written in the [[WP:MOS|proper style[[ and should not be an immediately negative article. Please give that some consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
comment Thanks for the excelent advice and constructive input. But I thought Wiki was a collaborative project where everyone with information and ability to contribute would participate in writting up interesting articles to expand the knowledge of readers of the world. Judging from all the interest in this topic "Prequalification" It obviously merits a great article with plenty of details and cites and all. I started it off based on experience and knowledge. I added the expand tag to invite editors with interest in expanding knowledge to pitch in and edit it. Do you all expect me to rewrite Wiki all by myself? If there was any integrity in these peoples concern with the article one would expect efforts to reword, cite and expand...and not the Spanish Inquisition looking to burn this witch at the stake for fear it might result in an informative article on an important subject of great pubic interest.--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment What we expect, WikiWoo, is that content be properly sourced - especially content that presents a clear point of view. We expect that editors here will have one agenda: the improvement of Wikipedia. Anything less is harmful to the project. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note WikiWoo has just created an identical copy of the article at Prequalification. Since the content is the same, it should be bundled with this AFD. Fan-1967 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And I just tagged it. JChap2007 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, OR, and WP:NOT a soapbox. jgp TC 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the current incarnation of this article. It would be very hard to build a good article from such a one-sided starting point. Keeping this article does a disservice to Wikipedia. Deletion should be done with no prejudice against another editor covering this topic from a neutral and well-sourced perspective in the future. Gwernol 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted - empty. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli DMCA Law

This is NPOV ("This law must be stopped"), partly in Hebrew, and a political article rather than a Wikipedia article. It mainly contains links. – rotemliss – Talk 17:33, 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 Keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper Duncombe

Is this even needed? I'm thinking Speedy A7 for this page. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't seem like a speedy, since porn directors can be notable, but unless reliable, notability-asserting sources are provided, delete. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to weak keep, since this link [24] says his company is notable and provides content to Playboy TV. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article had quite a bit of content before it was taken out by an IP. User:Craigy144 21:12, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crafty Plugz Inc.

Promotional material about a nn company. Delete Owen× ☎ 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete — This article reads like an advertisement, or seems to have been pulled straight out of a corporate brochure somewhere. Has no particular explanation of notability as well. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — non-notable company. 2 Google hits. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As much as I'd like to see this article deleted, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Non-notable companies and advertisements cannot be speedied, otherwise I would have done it myself rather than bring it here. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:CSD-A7; based on the username that created it and the article itself I don't see how this can't be seen as a vanity page. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is Promotional Materials. Daniel's page ☎ 23:42, 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 Keep per expansion of article. Also needs to be expanded and cleaned up.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Day University of Colombia

Not only equivalent to an A7 for places, it only is 2 stub tags and an infobox. This seems worthless to Wikipedia. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a degree-granting institution. I've added some material to it. Plenty more could be done. Dlyons493 Talk 01:28, 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 keep. It's a featured article, and it's on the front page today, the worst possible timing to put it up for AfD. --JoanneB 17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynna Kydd

While this article is well ref'd this person does not seem notable (outside where she would play at least) Speedy Delete as NN. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:54, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite Roleplay

Non-notable neologism. A few sites are linked here as references, but the only one that comes close to meeting the requirements (Gaia) doesn't even use the term. Crystallina 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Elite" as in "people who can spell"? Leibniz 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Elite delete per nom --Nydas 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete smells like OR; a neologism that no real "elite roleplayer" (or "literate roleplayer") actually uses. Keep only if we get really really good sources for this one and equally well sourced article for "misspelled powergaming". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as essentially OR (and quite possibly, inherently POV), per wwwwolf. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:44, 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 to keep the article. --  Denelson83  21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hahn (Nebraska)

Previously deleted four days ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hahn (Nebraska). Article has been rewritten, so it's not technically a repost, and can't be speedied. Campaign ad for candidte for governor, who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this article seems to meet the notability criteria given in WP:C&E. The subject is a major party candidate for the highest position in the State government of Nebraska. He has received considerable Nebraska news coverage, and is an active and visible candidate. The article on the Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2006 exists, and now the notable candidates deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. There exists enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on the candidate which will be proved if the article is allowed to exist for long enough for one to be written. The fact that another person has attempted to fill the hole seems evidence that there is enough interest for the article to exist. This is not an ad for the candidate. I have no affiliation with the candidate. I am simply interested in Nebraska politics and wish there were more information available on Wikipedia about the major players. I plan on flushing out the entries on both the major candidates in this race to help push them beyond stub status. Alienmercy 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The first article's author was User:Hahnfornebraska, and the content was copied from the campaign website, so that hardly demonstrated any interest by anyone other than Mr. Hahn's campaign staff. Being a candidate does not, in itself, make someone notable; being elected does. Wikipedia is not a voters' guide. Fan-1967 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand being a candidate for office does not necessarily make someone notable, but I truly believe this candidate is. Regardless of what happened before, I am an outside observer who can maintain neutrality. I realize that Wikipedia is not a voter guide, but there are many similar articles on governor, senate, and congressional candidates currently out there that I read out of interest. Most of the currently contested gubernatorial election have articles on the serious challengers. The other major contested statewide race in Nebraska this year is the senate election. The challenger, Pete Ricketts, has a stub which was considered for deletion and was kept. What is the difference between the two? Can any political challengers be considered notable? Alienmercy 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Pete Ricketts' article was Proposed for Deletion, a process which anyone can contest and cancel. No one ever pursued a full deletion nomination like this one. No way to know what the result would have been. To answer your question, generally (in my opinion) only challengers who receive significant news coverage outside their state or district would be considered notable. I would also note that, despite being of opposite parties, both Ricketts and Hahn are considered almost guaranteed losers to popular incumbents. Would you still consider either one notable come November 8? Fan-1967 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In fact, I do believe a loser can be notable. My own anecdotal interests are all I have, but I like to read about election history, and the losers contribute to that history. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any of those other articles delted, but why has this one been singled out for deletion where so many others in similar situations have not? It seems that there was outside opposition to the last deletion of the article, so I fail to see where the consensus for deletion is. If a significant portion of Wikipedia readers are interested in this article's continued existence, what is the problem? No one is forced to read this article, and I think a borderline case ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed. Alienmercy 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This time of year, articles on candidates are coming through AFD all the time (a new one was nominated about ten minutes ago). I'm sure huge numbers get missed as well. This one was not targeted in particular, except insofar as I still had the title on my watch list from the last AFD. A loser can be notable, not necessarily is notable. Will this one be? He'll be a good sport, run a clean, sincere campaign, and concede graciously on election night. Fan-1967 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I disagree, I understand all of your arguments except one: what is the distinction you - Fan-1967 - make between Pete Ricketts and David Hahn. You are certainly aware of it as you were the first to cite him as an example in the discussion of the first deletion. Again, let me reiterate, I am not advocating the deletion of the Pete Ricketts article. Alienmercy 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see him as any more deserving of an article than Hahn. I assume he will also concede politely after a sincere campaign. Fan-1967 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And yet, you've chosen this article for deletion but not the other. Why? Alienmercy 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the first time, it was a blatant campaign ad, copied from the candidate site, posted by his staff. The second time, it was a reposting of a deleted article. Fan-1967 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that this one isn't a reposting. I've never even seen the original article. Forgive my naiveness, but is there a way a normal user can view this previous article in question? Alienmercy 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the Google cache of it, from August 11. Don't know how often Google refreshes their cache. If you check his campaign site bio, it's pretty much word-for-word. I think the Wikipedia article had been trimmed down by the time that version was cached on 8/11, and originally had that god-awful paragraph about how his "love of the law is matched by his dedication to the democratic principles." Fan-1967 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A major party candidate for a governor's seat is notable. Not always; in a state almost completely ruled by a single party with a sacrificial lamb, any old person can get the party's nomination. However, in this case, the guy had other people challenging for the nomination, and looks like he's trying to mount a credible campaign (even if he isn't going to win due to demographics, he's making an earnest try for it, apparently). I would recommend fixing the problems with the article and not arguing that it needs to be deleted because an article was deleted before. Captainktainer * Talk 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not argue that it should be deleted because it was deleted before. Frankly, I renominated it because my first inclination was to believe that the original author was gaming the system by creating a fresh version. I no longer believe that. I still believe that we should not have articles on people simply because they're candidates. Sooner or later, most of them lose. Fan-1967 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Captainktainer, this one looks notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. RFerreira 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as Captainktainer and RFerreira, although article needs some work Basement12 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per captainktainer this is a major party candidate Yuckfoo 22:12, 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 -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paolo Mossetti

Article in Italian language, should be in it.wikipedia.org 81.208.60.192 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • (AFD reason from article talk page. Tagged by anon. Completing nomination. Fan-1967 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete or Transwiki From my (admittedly poor) grasp of Italian it's about a random blogger, but I'll leave that up to someone fluent in Italian to decide. --Wafulz 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to fail WP:BIO, from what I can understand. If someone fluent in Italian can find anything in the article that says he's notable, then I may change my mind. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've listed the page on Pages needing translation to make absolutely sure he's non-notable. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My Italian's pretty rusty, but I can gather enough to understand "centinaia di visitatori unici al giorno, e migliaia di pagine lette" (hundreds of unique visitors a day, and thousands of page views). Fan-1967 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See [25]. No reason to translate this. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 27 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)  12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women of the WWE

There are already pages similar to the title out there, and this is just a bunch of fancruft about Trish Stratus. Burgwerworldz 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Everything important or verifiable is already on the Trish Stratus page. --Wafulz 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as above. --Dennette 22:34, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tempometer

Classic original research. Gory details are at the talk page. Melchoir 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. --Wafulz 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but perhaps see my comment on the talk page. digfarenough (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOR, WP:V, non-notable. --Bmk 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advertisement for non-notable software. --N·Blue talk 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everything mentioned above, OR, V, spam, etc. This is fundamentally an ad for software, nn at that. -- Deville (Talk) 21:36, 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 Redirected to Oregano.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregano oil

The original author removed the prod tag, moving to AfD now. Seems to fail under WP:SPAM and WP:V. Its title is Oregano oil, but it jumps straight into a book about the topic, and then preaches the benefits of oregano oil. Wafulz 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as prod2'er. Spam for NN book by NN author, as well as NN product. Trifecta. Fan-1967 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Oregano. Oregano oil exists as part of the plant, but we don't need a spamtastic article about it as a magic elixir. Any established "health benefits" of the oil can be added to the plant article, given they're supported with actual cite-able facts. IceCreamAntisocial 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. Gazpacho 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Park Parade Shopping Centre

Malls? C'mon, people. Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable location, unless another editor can provide evidence to the contrary.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per aeropagitica. Srose (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Hazlemere, it's important to that community. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a mall. 'Nuff said. Unless it is the Mall of the Americas, or has a high death rate for some extremely interesting reason, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Legis 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was used as a film location (an external shot of the supermarket) in a British television series. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A background shot in film is not enough for me. If that was the case, then a lot more buildings merit an article. Now if some action scene was shot there, then maybe... Vegaswikian 18:33, 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of accounting topics

Comment - you failed to mention that it only has a fraction of the articles, therefore, it is meaningless. What123 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think the list needs expanding, then add {{listdev}}. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion in any policy or guideline. Melchoir 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Melchoir. If this article is incomplete it needs tagging, not deletion. AndyJones 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Amongst other things, it serves an extremely useful function when writing articles about finance topics, allowing one to link across more easily. Legis 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is nothing more than a bare list, a function better performed by the category. Lists should only be kept if they offer more than a bare listing of the articles in a category. GRBerry 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is wrong as a matter of principle. Lists complement categories, and both should exist. Lists can contain red links, they can contain items too minor to justify their own page, and they can contain commentary, all of which cetegories cannot. AndyJones 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In this case, the category Category:Accountancy does not even perform the function of listing articles! It only links to six articles; the rest are in a subcategory structure that's much more difficult to navigate than a list. Melchoir 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. category stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirtbag (band)

Non-notable band which fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by link to official website (as a source). They are just releasing their first album and have finished a tour with a band that doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Allmusic has only the rapper and not these guys. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 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 Redirect to Insomnia.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepless night

Essentially a dictionary entry. ArglebargleIV 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Seems pointless when the Insomnia article contains far more useful and referenced information on the subject.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I made it, plus you could just redirect it to insomnia. Falconleaf 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it gives no real information other than telling us that a sleepless night is a night when you do not sleep. --Wafulz 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to insomnia. Leibniz 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to insomnia. --Bookgrrl 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to insomnia AdamBiswanger1 00:37, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John William Gibson

This person seems non-notable as far as I can tell he just seems like a member of the communist party but didn't do anything notable - objections were raised during the preposed deletion process SirGrant 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This Google search brings up the wikipedia page and two copies of an obituary --Wafulz 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. I can't find any reliable or conclusive evidence that he founded either of the two societies the article credits him with. Srose (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to note that I believe the person who brought up the objections to this article being deleted is a sockpuppet of the origional creater of the article. If you check Valandro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Snedger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) their contributions are very similar as they work on nearly the exact same set of articles. While there is no official policy against sockpuppetry I would just like it to be noted that I believe it's a possibility. SirGrant 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Leuko 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strongest assertion of notability is the founding of the friendship societies with the DDR and the Soviet Union, but I don't see anything to suggest that those societies are notable. Therefore, Gibson is non-notable by extension. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we had an article for every random British communist... we'll that's just to horrible to contemplate. Legis 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nominator also delisted as he felt this was going to end in a sure keep. Crossmr 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

[edit] Robert Young Pelton

Anonymous user--either this author or his slovenly publicist--is spamming Wikipedia to promote a not yet published book and this author.

Information on this subject comes from promotional sources, so he is not worthy of inclusion. Keep Wikipedia free of merchandise. delete'

lots of issues | leave me a message 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delist Outcome looks obvious, so I'm withdrawing. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is in bad shape, yes, but the subject is definitely notable with articles specifically about him in Time Magazine and Salon, among others. - Richfife 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Can we get a Speedy Keep here? I can't see anything but a Keep at this point - Richfife 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete rewrite The article is basically an advertisement, but he seems to be fairly established. The problem in the article lies in that the lower half is as follows:
    • [CLICK HERE TO BUY MY BOOK] [Book title]
    • [Random assortment of every link relating to the subject] --Wafulz 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note The next five entries are all effectively first time contributions - Richfife 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've met Mr. Young Pelton, read his books and have spoken with people who know him and his 'adventures'. If anything the article leaves out some of the incredible things he's done and accomplished. It doesn't mention the numerous awards he's recieved or the fact that his writing and traveling are just one face of his multi-faceted life. I couldn't imagine anyone who knows of him or what he's done objecting to this Wiki piece. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.141.174 (talk • contribs) }
  • Article Subject Hi, Robert Young Pelton here... it seems that the fellow who wants to delete the entry is a guy named James who got into a pissing match with me on another site. Open to cleaning up the organization and getting rid of the stupid verbal graffitti that gets added. More importantly the links on the site are to outside articles and all information in the listing is verfiable. Might be the only Wiki entry that has my personal friggin email in it! In any case I have no idea who I am talking to on this forum. ...and no... my mother didn't write the entry or the comment above. :)))) I could post my full CV if needed....its handy to have a web entry that people can refer to. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYP (talk • contribs)


  • Keep - From Spencer in New York - Robert Pelton's work is extremely valuable to the world of journalism. Ideas and observations made outside of the corporate news entities are slowly becoming a thing of the past and less and less available to those of us that look to independent journalism to inform us on what is really happening in the world. The "non-sexy, in vogue" stories, issues, and places in need of our attention are what Mr. Pelton has made a career of focusing on and illuminating through his books, articles, and reports. Deleting his entry from Wikipedia, is fully contrary to what Wikipedia is about; a site based around the idea of community, the ideal of which as described by its founder as, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing," - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerpost (talk • contribs)


  • KEEP!!! Y'all gotta be kiddin me, thats the best most clinical author's profile in 5 paragraphs I've ever read replete with links to the author's works with in-depth coverage. Where's the beef about self-seeking promotion? I sure aint seein any. Haint it Wikipedia SOP to include profiles of world famous, award winning authors complete with links that refer to their works? And if Wiki-wackos start editing and messing it up, dont worry because commonwealth opinion will prevail and clip whatever junk gets added on. Otherwise y'all are crazy to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, Robert Pelton is easily one of the most influential writers of our time...... says me, Yorickentucky
  • Keep - The entry seems fine to me. A photograph would be good and the last paragraph needs re-arranging too. Young-Pelton is probably the most prominent and respected author in this field. Although it'd be fair to say that his Televised and journalistic pieces aren't to the same standard of the likes of the BBC's John Simpson, the books he has published are much more encyclopedic rather than subjective reportage... all of this is nicely captured in the entry, although - as i say - it's a bit messy at the moment. Cyberdog 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by cyberdog (talk • contribs)
  • Moved Content - I moved some non-AFD related discussion to the article talk page here:

Talk:Robert_Young_Pelton - Richfife 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep / Rewrite' RYP's work has been televised and in print, he has been covered by Time Magazine and Salon per Richfife, Cyberdog, and Wafulz. Hi Robert. :) --HResearcher 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above. NLOleson 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Robert is the real deal! He interviewed John Walker Lindh and his adventures and books are epic. The Wikipedia would be incomplete without a mention of Robert Young Pelton. The article needs to stay. SP24.245.14.48 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have read several of Pelton's books and find them to be informative, entertaining, perceptive and humane. His web site "black flag cafe" has proven to be a very valuable source of information and contacts in re my travel to non-traditional destinations. The sincerety of RYP in providing relevant and valuable information and topical discussion is beyond question. He is a man who "walks the walk" and better yet encourages and motivates others to do the same. submitted by: Charlotte
  • Keep per Richfife, notable author with many books under his belt. And we're not talking vanity press here, either. RFerreira 22:57, 26 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. Any remaining notable information can be merged from the history of this article.Crossmr 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duggar family

While Jim Bob Duggar may be noteworthy having been a former legislator, his family is not. None of them have established any relevance of encyclopedic nature, and while such a large family is rare, it is not unique or unprecedented. I recommend the article be removed, and possibly an article on Jim Bob Duggar created instead, with a section mentioning his large family. --NEMT 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:BIO not met, per my nom. --NEMT 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been substantial non-trivial third party coverage, as can be seen on their site. However, I have no idea how to establish the notability of a large family on Wikipedia. A friend of mine has twelve siblings, and another has eleven- however, they didn't get their own documentary. --Wafulz 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They do certainly have a lot of third party coverage. They seem to be cited a lot in the Creationism/Evolution debates (that is, by the creationists). I think they are notable not because of the size of their family, but by the coverage they've (somehow) received. -- Loudsox 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Plenty of people appear as subjects on episodes nonfiction television series, should everyone who's ever been on a cable tv segment get an encyclopedia article? WP:BIO doesn't say "If you're on the Discovery Channel you're good to go." --NEMT 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Or something. "Jim Bob Duggar", who is notable as a member of the house of representatives, redirects here. Article should be rewritten to emphasize Duggar and de-emphasize his family, renamed back to "Jim Bob Duggar" and redirect under the original title to there put in. - Richfife 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He actually was only a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives (his national run failed). So he may not be notable after all. - Richfife 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Jim Bob Duggar was not a member of the US House of Representatives, he is a former member of the Arkansas House. Whether or not this is notable is unknown to me, regardless, his family certainly is not. --NEMT 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: They were featured in a TV show... I mean, if that doesn't shriek notability, what does? --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They were featured on a TV show - just like thousands of people not currently given wikipedia articles, you mean? --NEMT 08:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yep. I mean, it was a channel of the Discovery Channel congolomerate. Not some local access stuff. So, yep. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So everyone who has ever been featured on a cable tv program segment has established encyclopedic notability? Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does WP:BIO. Maybe if this family had a TV series dedicated to them it would be a different story; but a few sporadic appearances for the sake of demonstrating a large family and/or radical religious views does not establish notability. --NEMT 08:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was moved from Jim Bob Duggar, who would be notable as a member of a state legislature per WP:BIO. Being on several television programs could constitute the multiple external sources needed to be notable. if the Duggars are the feature of the programs. However, the article is filled with minutiae from their daily lives and does not answer the question "Why should I care about the subject?" If the only source is the television programs it is unlikely to be expanded/fixed unless a WP editor happens to catch a rerun of the program. No vote from me on this one yet. JChap2007 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Jim Bob Duggar. I can envision people looking this up on Wikipedia, and they should certainly get something, but I'm not sure the family is more notable than Congressman Duggar himself. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back to Jim Bob Duggar... They were featured on 2 Discovery channel specials and if I'm not mistaken, the number of children he had came up in his run for office. Conceivably someone may care to look this up... but I'm not sure a seperate article is the answer. Any info that is verified can be added to Mr. Duggar's article and that should suffice.--Isotope23 17:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Jim Bob Duggar. I just noticed that someone redirected Jim Bob Duggar here back in April. Lo and behold, there was a halfway decent, sourced article just waiting for someone to come along and pull it out of the history... so I did. Jim Bob meets WP:BIO and this article should just redirect there in the event anyone comes to Wikipedia looking for the Duggar family. Redirects are cheap.--Isotope23 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I find your redirect solution much more appropriate than the current Duggar family article, as it establishes the notability of Jim Bob Duggar, and includes information on his large family. --NEMT 18:11, 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: userfied by sole editor - am speedy closing this discussion as this is similar to an 'author requests deletion' scenario. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 mobile phone arrests

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. The significance of this event is far from evident. Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, can i have at least one hour to work on it? The thing on the article now is the second of a kind, this is a sequal. Give me a while. --Striver 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think i will find much more info. --Striver 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, i thought there was more to this. I userfied it and put a speedy tag on it.--Striver 23:02, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Legion (gaming community)

Vanity page which contains no claims to notability, failing the WP:WEB guideline; and no references, failing the WP:V policy. A notability template was added the article approx 1 month ago, no attempt had been made in that time to comply with WP:WEB. Mako 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gaming clan. Not notable. Fan-1967 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above and per nom. --Wafulz 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: gaming communities, in particular, need to be extremely popular to warrant inclusion here. This site simply isn't large, nor externally recognised, enough. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:15, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialcasting

Yet another podcasting protologism. 76 Google hits. Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NEO. --Haakon 21:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete only gets 80 g-hits for this term. Looks like it's a neologism coined by a company (dialcasting.com). This article might be promotion, but it might not be. ---J.S (t|c)
  • Weak Delete for now. After searching through google, this looks like WP:NEO. However, if the term becomes popular in the future (which is likely), this should be re-included into Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:58, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vol. II Preview

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Blood red sandman 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The band itself isn't notable. I'm marking it AFD also. Speedy Delete The band was just removed as a speedy, the record album they're going to start working on at some point should be as well. - Richfife 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lead singer of the band and article creator are both named Connor - Richfife 22:29, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacewallpapers.net

A non-notable website; Alexa rank of almost 500.000, 52 incoming links, 872 Google hits for "Spacewallpapers". Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no WP:RS indicating that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:11, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic Robots

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Czj 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Also fails Verifiability, Vanispamcruftisment (sp?). Key phrases: "Written by Luke Lasley as a way to entertain himself and his friends", "Although it is unclear just how Idiotic Robots came to be" and "Of these 24 comics only eight have been made, and it is likely that the last sixteen will never be put into production". No web link. - Richfife 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable, unverifiable, made up at school, cruft, etc.... --Wafulz 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: "Written by Luke Lasley as a way to entertain himself and his friends" ... yeah, that's about as noteable as pocket lint. --Dennette 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless some references appear very soon. Spelling suggests not much time was spent working on this article. Gimmetrow 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But... but... It is currently spreding into several schools throughout the Nashville area!!! Oh wait, yeah. Delete as non-notable, WP:NFT, suspected WP:VANITY, WP:V, yada yada. --Kinu t/c 05:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:11, 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearview Mall

Just a list of stores, not very notable. To see a similar debate refer to this [26], delete Yanksox 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer of Sonic

Placed on CSD, CSD was contested. Article has been deleted once before. While having Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, and Richard Jacques comment on the event is very impressive, it's also unverifiable because the only interview sources are the Summer of Sonic website itself, and it does not constitute a reliable source. There needs to be reliable sources about the event to make it pass WP:WEB. ColourBurst 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The only other website (that I know of so far) is http://news.sonicstadium.org/story/190/ and a forum topic http://boards.ign.com/sonic_the_hedgehog/b5224/123339129/p1/ UnDeRsCoRe 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please read reliable sources. Sonic News cannot be considered "independent" as it is part of the TSS network, the host of Summer of Sonic. IGN forum posts are also wholly unverifiable because anybody can post. ColourBurst 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is this. http://www.sonic-cult.org/newsx/fullnews.php?id=100 I don't know if it's reliable... http://sonichq.mobiusforum.net/newsite/ it has a small thing saying to visit it. I still can't find websites that are classified as "reliable" such as IGN or Gamespot, or even SEGA etc. UnDeRsCoRe 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty recent; shouldn't we give someone out there time to write something on it? Anyway, Jun Senoue, an muscian who works at Sonic Team, has something about it on his site. Besides, Sega recognizes it as a significant event and gave permission for Sonic Stadium to use the "15th anniversary logo" (which is usually only granted to sites like IGN). Also, interviews with Sonic Team staff were placed on SoS rather than their usual place at Sonic Channel. This is a big event, much more than Hedgehog Heaven. (I think you should know that "no evidence of notability, therefore not notable" is denying the antecedent and an irrelevant conclusion. Know the logic behind your own policy, for goodness sakes.) --DavidHOzAu 02:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. You don't wait for someone else to write about an item to justify its existence here. It needs sufficient outside source first. Wryspy 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] August 20

I don't know what happened here. The article didn't have an AFD tag on it, this AfD was never closed. I'm recreating the AfD and relisting. This site is non-notable, as proven by the enormous list of nn handles of forum contributors. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable, possible forumcruft, and possible advertising. Alexa Count is 827,456. --real_decimic 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Listing forum contributors doesn't really inspire confidence. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Any reason for the 2 same AFD notices on the page? --real_decimic 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources. If it's deleted, be sure to remove the redlink from Template:SonicFeatures so as to discourage recreation by a well-meaning third party. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Just because it does not have an official source dosen't mean it isn't an event. That would be like saying that a tv show dosen't exist just because no website has talked about it. UnDeRsCoRe 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If it doesn't have any official sources and none can be found, it doesn't meet WP:V. If it doesn't meet WP:V, we can't/won't/shouldn't keep it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If the world at large (read Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis) don't care then we shouldn't either. ~ trialsanderrors 01:54, 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. Molerat 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nintendo characters

Deprod by serial de-proder Kappa without explanation. Absurdly long piece of list/fan-cruft. No rhyme or reason to what gets included and what doesn't. I can't think of any way this list can be fixed. I'm not sure how article survived this long (> 2 years). Irongargoyle 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, doesn't seem to be an arbitrary list and the fact that it's been around for several hundred edits indicates to me that a lot of people consider this to be an encyclopedia-worthy topic. JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Covert to Category: A category listing would seem to suffice for this list as each character page in the category probably mentions what Nintendo games they have been in. --Mitaphane talk 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the list obviously has information that would not be convienent in a category. It's a broad, though finite, list, like one of the List of books or Lists of people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A category won't do as a lot fo these are minor characters that shouldn't have an article. WP:Fict suggests creating lists for minor characters. Ace of Sevens 03:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep maintainable and important. — brighterorange (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely worth keeping. Also, a list of minor characters as Ace of Sevens said, would also be a good idea. Havok (T/C/c) 06:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Usually I say to delete lists, but this one is maintainable and meaningful to enough people. Wryspy 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is both maintainable and informative. Not really fancruft, since it's a well-selected article that summarises Nintendo's huge and intertwined gaming series'. Worth keeping, methinks. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- per nom.--Peephole 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this list is a great and useful reference for me as well as many other people. Why delete it? It's just the same as any other list, and is by no means "fancruft". There are a lot of Nintendo characters, yes, but that doesn't mean that we should get rid of it... Kitsunetsuki 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Nom and Speedy Keep I still disagree that this should be kept, but I think a major overhaul into a list of lists (i.e. List of lists of books or Lists of people per Night Gyr) would be another option. Irongargoyle 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: There is nothing wrong with long lists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since the nominator has withdrawn his nomination, can this be closed now? TJ Spyke 22:05, 24 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)  11:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area 51 (skate shop)

A single skate shop, fails WP:CORP. -- Middenface 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Wafulz 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dennette 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — advert. SynergeticMaggot 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this ad per nom. Wryspy 07:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete commercialism. -- Gillean666 10:31, 24 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 Naconkantari 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberta Wenocur

nn mathematician and statistician, despite claims of notability in the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep solid academic career with some awards and also artistic output Dlyons493 Talk 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for academicians to warrant entry, and this does not meet those criteria. Heck, I'd have my own Wikipedia article if this counted. Wryspy 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and meanwhile beware of afd tag removal. --CharlotteWebb 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Notability. -- Szvest 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
  • Comment- Why should this article be deleted? There are very few women in mathematics, statistics, and the science. Roberta Wenocur's work is cited worldwide in VC-theory and empirical processes. All her publications listed are verifiable. She is still currently doing research. Why the sudden problem with this article??? Unsigned comments by IP 71.242.164.228]
    71.242.164.228 is User:MathStatWoman, not logged in. - David Oberst 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, does enough to merit inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, does enough to merit inclusion. MathStatWoman 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Such as? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Roberta Wenocur, along with Elaine Zanutto and a handful of others, is one of the very few women in mathematics/science/statistics. She has verifiable achievements -- just check the references. We female mathematicians are underpaid, unsung, and mistreated; our research is stolen by men.. Now a bio of one of us is to be deleted? Not fair! MathStatWoman 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity article. Gazpacho 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- If this is a "vanity article", so are some about men in mathematics, too. How abour R.M. Dudley, Mark Pinsky, Don Knuth -- all great mathematicians, and the articles deserve to be there. If this is a "vanity article", why not wipe out all articles about the men, too? And the few women, too? I wanted to add bios on other female (and male) mathematicians, but are they all "vanity" articles. I already voted "keep", so this is just a comment. I will quit Wikipedia forever and there will be no more bios on any mathematician, scientist, or statistician from me again...you are not well-informed about mathematics, science, and statistics, or else you are a bunch of bullies who want to control Wikipedia. So, I was planning to write a bio on Paul Halpern (physicist and author), James Pierce (bioinformaticist), Linda Zhao (statistician), and others, but you would call them "vanity articles". MathStatWoman 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Articles written by you about Halpern et. al. would be fine as long as they aren't original research and meet the other relevant guidelines and standards such as WP:BIO Brian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
    • Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Gazpacho 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pretty clear that this article is autobiography from reading both the article and the user's page. Delete as violation of WP:Autobiography Brian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
    • Isn't that something we can fix by editing, though? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone could take a shot at it while the AfD is still open and that could influence the outcome of the AfD - that's certainly happened with other articles that initially looked like deletes. I don't think this article passes the notability requirements either though, so unless there's information to add that establishes notability I think it would still be deleted. Brian 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Keep — per Badlydrawnjeff. Dionyseus 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stay on topic. Whether or not women are under-represented in math does not matter for our purposes. Just having a job (even if that job is "mathematician") is nowhere near enough to warrant an article. However, clearly some academics are of encyclopedic significance. I don't see enough here to decide either way, yet- the article needs serious improvement. I wish we'd given it time to improve without the pressure of Afd, but that ship has sailed. My opinion is keep for now to give the article time to develop- if later we're still not satisfied of the verifiable significance of this person, we could delete it then. Friday (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Upon further thought, we need demonstrable notability now in order to keep the article now. I don't see much here that couldn't be said of any academic, so delete. Friday (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy (e.g., Wikipedia:Notability (people)) as it is nothing other than a personal page. Does anybody search for this person? Does anybody search Google for this person? Who would want to know what her dissertation is? Has she significantly contributed to the field? There's nothing wrong with having articles on women, but that fact is irrelevant. The question is whether this article provides good information about an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a personal page. Chris53516 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is a person who is noteworthy, an expert in her chosen field of expertise and can be verified by Google, etc. She has had many of her complex papers published and has a long history of publishing these specialised papers. She is in-charge of an organisation which is notable and listed and has been working with colleagues and peers who are also well known and listed on Wikipedia. Summary: She has verifiability; is a significant expert in her area of specialization; has had many significant and well-known academic work published; has received a number of notable award or honor; What else do you want - Blood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harisingh (talk • contribs) .
    • No offence, but this seems to be a combination of mis-reading and unsupported assertion. She is not currently in-charge of a notable organization. The article seems to indicate that at one time (by implication over a decade ago) she was "second in command" to the Executive Director of SIAM. This role is not defined; certainly "assistant to the Executive Director" would be notable (see my notes on the Talk page. There is no evidence that any of the "Awards" are particularly notable, or that any of her publications are "significant and well-known", etc., etc. Speaking as someone who hit the wall with college calculus, I applaud her as a successful mathematician, academic, and contributor to human knowledge, but that does not require an encyclopedic article. - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Her papers seem to be of a high caliber. More importantly, her work on order statistics arguably fulfills 4 and/or 5 of the academic notability test. JoshuaZ 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Which criteria of WP:PROF do you see being met, and on what basis? If it can be shown, I'd certainly reconsider my Delete opinion. I can't see any assertion for #5 or #6. #7 doesn't seem to be met (see my Talk page notes. None of the published work would seem to "significant and well-known" for #3, or collectively for #4. Do you have some indication for #1 or #2? - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aside from my WP:AUTO/ WP:VANITY concerns with the originating editor, the fact that an academic has published is not notable in itself; it depends on the nature of the work. There is no indication that this has been frequently cited or meets the other criteria of WP:PROF. And aside from the work, the rest of the information is non-notable biography or CV data. I've made some additional notes on the Talk:Roberta Wenocur page, and to other contributor's notes here. - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I searched on ISI Web of Knowledge (author finder, RS Wenocur); this showed just 3 papers, only one of which was cited more than once - her paper in DISCRETE MATHEMATICS 33 (3): 313-318 1981 is given as having 45 citations which is a very strong showing for this field. However, I don't see a strong case for notability as a mathematician. No doubt she's a good mathematician, but I really think we have to be very parsimonious with biographies of living people. Yes there are relatively few female mathematicians, and in a few years there might be rather few male biologists; an article on gender and mathematics might be interesting, and maybe that's the way to address this as an issue Gleng 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This person has made significant contributions to her field, and is more noteworthy than many other academics who have Wikipedia entries. Bioinformatician 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Newly created account whose only edit is the above comment. In unrelated news, the original creator of this article appears to have previous sockpuppetry issues (here). - David Oberst 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is, for all its pomposity (her dissertation was later republished as four research articles???), an extended CV of a run-of-the-mill academic. Professors are like bishops, majors or surgeons, elevated above the average citizen but not notable by title alone. Other than the 45 cites on one article I don't see any other claim of notability that elevates her above her peers, and the scraping for accomplishments (University fellowship) puts this under WP:NOT the place for self-promotion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for various reasons noted above. Atlant 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Fulfils the following at WP:PROF.
    • 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.[citation needed]
    • 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.[citation needed]
    • 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.[citation needed]
    • 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.[citation needed]
    • 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.[citation needed] AND
    • 7. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.[citation needed] Ksingh20 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Is this user related to User:Harisingh? Chris53516 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: What independent sources? You cite none, and neither does the article! How do you define significant? Personal opinion? How do you define important or notable? These notes are too much the content of opinion, especially without any sources. Chris53516 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please see comment by user Hari singh previously. What proof have the 'delete camp' given - none. The Google search for "Roberta Wenocur", "Wenocur Roberta", with and without comma, "R. Wenocur", with and without full-stop,etc has produced over 500 hits so far and will grow. But I can't spend all day. So the person is notable, if you care to spend the time and carry out a full search. For an academic that is good. Try your own name? MxM Peace 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
MxM Peace has been established as a sock puppet of Ksingh20 . User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Check citation index, or just check on the works, including books and papers -- look in the index of each -- of Martin Anthony, R.M. Dudley, V. Vapnik, Salant, and many others, including how Wenocur's mathematical work led to better surgical procedure to help correct hearing impairment:

Estimation of the stapes-bone thickness in the stapedotomy surgicalprocedure using a machine-learning technique

Kaburlasos, V.G. Petridis, V. Brett, P.N. Baker, D.A. Dept. of Electr. & Comput. Eng., Aristotelian Univ. of Thessaloniki;

This paper appears in: Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on Publication Date: Dec 1999 Volume: 3, Issue: 4 On page(s): 268-277 ISSN: 1089-7771 References Cited: 25 CODEN: ITIBFX INSPEC Accession Number: 6463578 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/4233.809171 Posted online: 2002-08-06 22:47:22.0

MathStatWoman 13:01, 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 Naconkantari 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Wagner Associates

Fails WP:CORP, Google search brings up 9 hits with the top two being the Wiki article. --Wafulz 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating Daniel H. Wagner, Associates, which holds different text, but covers the same topic. --Wafulz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Another Correction of factual nature: I am sorry to User:Wafulz but due to the REDIRECT added recently, only the Daniel H. Wagner, Associates article remains. So please do not look for the Daniel Wagner Associates article as it does not exist as such and you will be redirects to Daniel H. Wagner, Associates --MxM Peace 21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:MathStatWoman created the other page (whichever it is) as a backup in case the other was deleted. Both are the same thing. Chris53516 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Correction the above user has made a factual error because:
      1). User has wrongly used the incorrect and shortened name;
      2). has failed to combine the results from the different searches that need to be done - Name could be "Daniel Wagner Associates", "Daniel H. Wagner, Associates" with the comma, "Daniel H. Wagner Associates", without the comma, "Daniel H. Wagner Associates Inc." with the Inc or incorporated; etc, etc and also a close check on "Daniel Wagner" and "Daniel H. Wagner". I get over 700 hits with just "Daniel H. Wagner Associates". I have not done the other combinations but the number will grow. So I suggest you completely ignore the above comment has it is factually incorrect Hari Singh 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Correction Hari Singh has made a factual error because Google searches search on text only. Commas are ignored. Therefore searching for "Daniel H. Wagner, Associates" will return exactly the same results as searching for "Daniel H. Wagner Associates". Adding "Inc" onto the end will only bring up results that were already returned in the search for the shorter string. So I suggest you completely ignore the above comment as it is factually incorrect Fan-1967 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Qualifies as self-promotion and advertising. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable DARPA company. Much work was on US Defence Force contract and so secret. Dlyons493 Talk 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If it's secret, you can't prove it warrants encyclopedic entry. Wryspy 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wafulz. —Michael Hays 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Google using full corporate name of Daniel H. Wagner Associates, doing the Google research properly, shows 10 pages of illustrious history and achievements. MathStatWoman 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete please Try this: Google using full name Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. MathStatWoman 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Properly Please: The full name of the corporation is Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. Google using; Daniel H. Wagner Associates, and you will get ten pages of entries about its long and illustrious history. Do this research. Google properly, and you shall see they are no lightweights —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathStatWoman (talk • contribs)
  • Note that MathStatWoman has created another article (with different text) at Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. Please don't do that; we have a procedure for renaming articles that users will assist you with if asked. Gazpacho 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, does appear notable according to the other page. Gazpacho 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has the company been the subject of any non-trivial third party coverage? Even using the proper name, I haven't been able to find any sort of news coverage, or listing under Forbes 500 or Fortune 500. According to this the company is still listed as a small business. Also, can anyone comment on the Daniel H. Wagner Prize? I see companies like IBM have won it, but I don't know much past this (ie, the prestige of the award). --Wafulz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. About Daniel Wagner, Associates Striking out user's third vote --Wafulz 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, third party: recognized as one of 200 best small corporations, Forbes, 2000; by the Navy, 1999 and 1997; by NIH twice in the 1990s. All available via Google. MathStatWoman 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First, can you give us these links? Saying they're available via Google doesn't do much. Second, stop saying "Keep" at the start of every comment you make. It's unnecessary and confusing. --Wafulz 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it doesn't provide useful content other than that of a private, for-profit organization, which is not encyclopedic content. Chris53516 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is a notable organisation with a specialisation in a challenging field; has longevity being formed in 1963; has won [government departmental award]; meets the WP:CORP criterion; . With Google produced over 10k responses (not restricted or reviewed). The fact that it is a with-profits organisation is irrelevant – so is Microsoft. That's a rubbish argument. If the "delete camp" do not give valid and properly argued reasons, their views should be ignored. Only valid and sustained points should be taken into account. This is not a vote but a discussion!!! User:Wryspy said: "If it's secret, you can't prove it warrants encyclopedic entry" How about the FBI then – They are secret and so should not be listed, if this user is to be believed. The Proposer has made a factual error in the Google search Hari Singh 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you please give me a working link? The one you've posted is dead. The fact that the company makes money doesn't make a difference- that's not what we're looking at. What we're looking at are two things: Is the company notable, and is information about it verifiable. So far, I've been given Google search terms to use, a link to a Navy search engine, a dead link, and some evidence that the company has done business with the government. In order to merit an article, the company should have achieved more than just existing and conducting business. Could you give me a specific independent third-party source on the company? Also, can someone address the relative importance of the award that the company presents? I'm getting a lot of results for it when searching for information on the company. --Wafulz 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MathStatWoman should no longer vote, since she has voted 3 times already. If you vote again, or if you vote with a sock-puppet, it will be struck-out.

  • Strong Keep as per the reasons given by Hari Singh above --MxM Peace 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Warning: The above user is brand new, and has only edited this and his/her user page and talk page, other than this article. The user may be a sock puppet of another user that has already contributed to this article. Chris53516 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Response to Wafulz

Here are some links, there are more, but I am tired

Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident, Volume III. See this about how Daniel H. Wagner Assoc searched for & found pieces of the Space Shuttle Challenger that had crashed.

The Process of Search Planning: Current Approaches and Continuing Problems, Lawrence D. Stone, Operations Research, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1983), pp. 207-233

From US Navy: http://www.navysbir.brtrc.com/navySearch/search/search.aspx

There are many more; but you are young and I am older and more tired. Goodnight. MathStatWoman 05:26, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 2006 signed NFL undrafted free agents

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (I'm an NFL fan, by the way). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Firstly, not notable (some will be signed, most wont). Secondly, is someone going to update it day-to-day through pre-season as they get signed, get cut? Useless list. Legis 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Legis. Additionally, any notable undrafted free agents (Marcus Vick, Jai Lewis) are mentioned in 2006 NFL Draft. SliceNYC 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A list like this would be a valuable resource for years to come whenever knowledge is needed relating to players that wound up making it in 2006, despite not being drafted. Brun8 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If any undrafted player makes a team out of training camp and stays for more than a couple of weeks, his name can be added to the "notable players" section of 2006 NFL Draft. SliceNYC 21:03, 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 with expansion. References provided show that its verifiable and in use which pulls it out of the realm of WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. More than one individual indicates they feel it could be more than a stub, if no expansion is forth-coming in a reasonable time, propose a merge to an appropriate article. Crossmr 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihadi

Contested prod. Dicdef, neologism. WP:WINAD, WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep "Neologism", in the sense its used in Wikipedia delete discussions, means essentially "some word or phrase made up by some small group which hasn't got mainstream recognition". One minute of Google finds the word used, in the meaning described here, by Christian Science Monitor, Time magazine, NPR, and the Los Angeles Times. A marge into something like Islamic fundamentalism might be a good idea, but there's plenty to be said about subject of young muslim men becoming radicalised and taking on an extreme worldview in which Jihad simply means "unconditional war". Middenface 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jihad. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Middenface and also this reference show that it has had enough discussion not to be affected by the reasoning behing the neologism guideline. It can be more than a dictionary definition and it is not the same as Jihad which is about the activity, this is an adjective about the type of people involved. Ansell 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not an adjective. It's a noun (per the article, at least). If it were an adjective it would be the wrong title for the article per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), by the way. And the best response to the claim that something is a dictionary definition is not "It's an adjective." but "This isn't a dictionary article about the word 'jihadi'. It's an encyclopaedia article about a type of person, and can be more than a perpetual stub encyclopaedia article.". Uncle G 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I was wrong to portray it as an adjective so definitely. It is uses in contexts such as "Jihadi War" [27] and "jihadi suicide culture" [28] which make the definition pretty clear to be a noun as it is always referring to a group of people with the characteristic of making Jihad. It could be more than a perpetual stub article as you say. The commentary from numerous sources shows that. [29] Wikipedia is worried about Neologisms because of the No original research and Neutrality policies mainly, both of which seem to be okay in this context. Ansell 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jihad. Could just as easily be covered there. If it gets to big it could always be split back out.--Isotope23 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Why could it not be developed from a stub on the current location? Ansell 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep eminently verifiable, commonly used term that doesn't mean the same thing as Jihad. MLA 14:13, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video game music (Treasure)

This article has had only one edit from 2004 and only this talk page links to it. Looking at the use by User:Ihavenolife, I presume he created it as an example. As such, I am nominating it for deletion under notability. --Mitaphane talk 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy User is still active, so maybe he will want to use this as an example again. JChap2007 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Treasure is responsible for some of the most awesome video game music ever. Information about their music might be appropriate at Treasure's page. Snacky 05:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and optionally merge per Snacky. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. And bad title formatting. At the very least it should be "List of music based on Treasure (video game)" or something else. Still, it just plain doesn't need to exist. Sparsefarce 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:12, 24 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)  11:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stateriotic

wikipedia is not a dictionary. Blood red sandman 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. ---J.S (t|c)
  • Delete or move to wiktionary if they want it. Mr Stephen 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary won't want it. It's a protologism, not a word. It fails Wiktionary's inclusion criteria quite spectacularly. It has zero Google Groups hits, for example. And most of the handful of things that Google Web pulls up are people asking "Is 'stateriotic' a word?", which isn't an actual use as a word. Uncle G 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:05, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woody's Workshop

nn fanclub. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - what, two weeks old, too? Definitely lacks notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Kukini 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is completely true and any padre fan knows it.
    • Truth is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination.--Isotope23 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep but cleanup and expand as per WP:CORP criteria.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikma

Corporate spam, complete with contact address. The text is copied verbatim from the company website, complete with the original "more" prompts. The creating editor's name is the same as the article's name. WP:NOT for advertising. Mr Stephen 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or rewrite It's a notable company, but as you've said, Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Wafulz 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Corporate Spam. They've actually gone to the lengths of requesting a full protection for this page. —Cliffb 00:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created hikma page to add information about my company hikma pharmaceuticals, and all the available information on the website or even any hard copy i have are the same , so i didn't copy and paste it here and even so if its still true why not !!? and about the username same as the page name thats ok i will login in different user, and about advertising its NOT, its a page as Pfizer, wyeth, and other pharmaceuticals companies page .Hikma 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
    • i didn't copy and paste it here and even so if its still true why not !!? — You did copy and paste it. The text is word-for-word identical. And the reason why not is our Wikipedia:Copyright policy. Copying a web page that is marked "© Copyright 2006 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC" and pasting it here is forbidden. Violating our copyright policy endangers the project. Users who repeatedly violate our copyright policy are permanently blocked from editing the project, out of simple self-protection. Uncle G 08:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite - I've stripped it down to a stub. Copyvio ad copy is clearly not acceptable, but it's listed on the London Stock Exchange and is probably thus notable. Hikma, we welcome your contributions but please review our neutral point of view policy to understand why we cannot accept verbatim public relations information. This article must be factual, dispassionate and written in a neutral tone. FCYTravis 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There are many non-notable companies listed on stock exchanges. Cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied are what are needed. Uncle G 08:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per being on the London Stock exchange. JoshuaZ 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A good faith edit, but needs a bit of a clean. Perhaps Hikma could put some history in? HawkerTyphoon 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as current stub. —Cliffb 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ok, i will read all the official policies here , then i will try to edit it and i will stick to every policy required. thanks for your help Hikma 11:03, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PWA Pyromania

None notable e-fed show (where people write roleplays and pretend to be wrestlers), thus vanity. Delete' Englishrose 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - blimey. Not only does it really not need the rosters to be included (generates bloat), e-feds are dime-a-dozen, and I can't see it meeting verifiability or WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to rebut this...

How is this not "verifiable"? Yes, you're right, e-feds are a dime a dozen, but not e-feds such as the PWA. It's massive, with a total roster of over 60 people, it's read by thousands of people a day. It's on the forums for the number one wrestling news site on the internet. This isn't some piddly little organization put on by a group of 13 year olds.

It's an entire community of people. If you don't believe me, read it for yourself. www.lopforums.com

I don't see what is so wrong about sharing all of this information with the general public.

This is indeed the place for rebuttals. If you can include the sources required under the verifiability policy that I linked to above (and that is in the statement right below the edit box), as well as show us how the site fits under the Website guidelines, then I'm sure other editors will give it thought. My view is that e-feds, like 99 percent of fan produced works, roleplay groups and similar fan-created products, are not encyclopedic, and that's why my vote above. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:22, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boake

Neologism. WP:NFT Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Prod removed silently by anon. Mr Stephen 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a new word. ---J.S (t|c)
  • Keep This is an up and coming word that people should know about and is being considered by dictionaries for their knew editions. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE. It is not a word promotion or just made up and posted willy nilly, but a thoughtout article that will help educate the world about a new term.68.81.89.156 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The job of wikipedia is to educate people about things that already exist, not things you hope to exist. The article can be re-witen once the word is in common usage.---J.S (t|c) 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable neologism. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. The word does not appear to even respect any basic rule of grammar, which would suggest to me unlikely to be accepted as a legitimate word in the English language. Until it is accepted, it is no better than a word someone made up at school one day. Ohconfucius 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia stresses that it is not a dictionary for new words. Wryspy 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a protologism.--Isotope23 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Ranger (Game Class)

Game-cruft. Article provides no context and verifiability. Fails policies like WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. ---J.S (t|c)

Do as you wish. I really don't care. ---FE411 {t|c}

I'm open to persuasion. Convince me... or make the article better and I'll withdraw this nomination. ---J.S (t|c) 04:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirect would be useless... and it would fail RfD. Who would search for "Ranger (Game Class)"? ---J.S (t|c) 22:40, 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.