Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 2

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Shit Wrestling

Good article, but WP:V and WP:NN seem to be fighting in here. This was listed as a red link on the 2 August noms by someone else. It was incomplete. TrackerTV is completing the nomination for 3 August. TrackerTV 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If it weren't for the line "has grown into a cult phenomenon among local college kids and teenagers alike", I'd say it was a CSD A7 (aka {{Db-bio}}). Still, it fails both WP:V and WP:NN, per nom. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find much of anything on it, seems like a non-notable local phenomenon. InvictaHOG 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Holy shit, this is not notable. "Ninja Pete is not in fact a ninja. Instead, he chose the name because he thought it sounded cool" C'mon this is a bunch of kids rolling on the ground with each other in the basement, not WWE.AdamBiswanger1 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Shultz IV 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and perhaps stick somewhere in the users space, someone went to a lot of trouble to type that all out. Themindset 05:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I'm not sure if this is worth userfying. Non-notable organization unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V and WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Michael 08:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of weapons in Naruto

This article has already been nominated once and quickly deleted with no keep votes. Reasoning remains the same and can be found at the original discussion page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No one would find this list useful, and I don't see why we allow similar lists for so many other animes and other forms of entertainment. Gary 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is not important even within the anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small black sun (talk • contribs)
• Delete Its a list of what kind of ninja star a given character uses. What next, a list of who uses what color lightsaber? I like the well done encylopediac fan stuff but this is silly. rootology (T) 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This list isn't even remotely useful but it may be an artifact of redlinks that weren't cleaned up after the previous AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe the article can ever be encyclopedic, no matter how well written. - Wickning1 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This AfD should probably be renamed "List of weapons in Naruto (2nd nomination)" to avoid confusion with a different potential article. --SevereTireDamage 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Shouldn't this be speedied as Recreation of deleted material? --Thatdog 07:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't anywhere close to the orignial content that was deleted, so that critera for speedy deletion doesn't apply. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Thatdog. Needn't go through AfD. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on its own nonexistent merits as a fragmentary game guide; Speedy delete as a recreation assuming that's true. --Stellmach 13:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Callum Armstrong

Hoax article: the only Armstrong to play for the All Blacks was in 1903 [1]. Ziggurat 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Avenue 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The author of this has created other likely hoax articles, which I have also nominated for Afd.-gadfium 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article mentions the subject's high school, and guess what? He still goes there. Nothing else relevant turns up on Google. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zog (disc jockey)

NN? -- Zondor 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yep. I say delete. --Bigtop 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per PorquinPsYoP78 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Porquin--Rokuwa 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons --Wafulz 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Crockford

Either I'm missing something, or this guy didn't really appear in Harry Potter 3.[2] I don't think I'm missing anything. Mad Jack 01:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-n Mad Jack 01:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I found some hits for this on google, but nothing from IMDB or any credible source. I'm inclined to believe it's a WP:HOAX alphaChimp ^laudare 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a crock (har har). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No it's clearly just a Ford Mad Jack 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete - I checked imdb, and he is not listed among the full cast.
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep errr yes he is the full cast list doesn't always include everyone. He appeared as an unamed extra (you have to view the call sheet for the movie to see but he is listed there - sorry no reference for that). However news about it is listed all over the web here for example. Also his name appears on the DVD credits too. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unveriable, by the sounds of it, only being an extra in one Harry Potter film isn't notable. Seeing as there is 100's of extra's in each Harry Potter film.--Andeh 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I do not believe this is a WP:HOAX. I don't think Crawford meets the WP:BIO criteria, but because Harry Potter is so notable and his character, Charley Weasley (note Crawford's picture on this page), is fairly important, I feel like it's worth keeping. MarkBuckles 10:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appearing as an unnamed extra, while great fun, is not cause for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm --PsYoP78 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's verifiable that Crockford played Charley Weasley, add that fact as a trivia bullet on the character page -- the rest is NN. TheronJ 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charley Weasley. Outside of Harry Potter, his college productions and dad being confused with the conductor of the London Gay Symphony doesn't merit an article. His picture and reference in the Charley Weasley article is sufficient for now. Agne 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Imdb is very comprehensive and includes very minor actors. If he's not important enough for an imdb listing, he's certainly not important enough for an article. The article currently cites no sources and I would expect that if he's not even in imdb it may be difficult to find any verifiable information about him at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. This search on imdb turns up half a dozen Crockfords, four "miscellaneous crew," illustrating the breadth of imdb's coverage... but no Alex. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to Charley Weasley not a hoax, and is notable in the context of that character. JoshuaZ 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't even remember this name from any of the books, and I've read them repeatedly (not to mention the films...). rootology (T) 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuerza Grafica

Orphaned AfD nomination. I think it is being nominated for lack of notability, although if the article is accurate it has that. However, it should be assessed against WP:CORP. Please ensure such assessment is done, rather than kneejerk "voting" in either direction. Technical nomination - no opinion from me, I'm seeking community and expert input. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not appear to be notable by any of the major search engines. Yahoo had the most with 36 unique hits. (with clones) I don't see any 3rd party writing about this company, and I fail to see what it has done to make it any different from any other company. Good luck finding the company website. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete per above. Michael 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Company is pretty non notable, Coca Cola employs thousands of sub contractors and companies to handle its printing, logistics, computers, ingredients etc. Its client list alone does not make it notable. Until more information is supplied such as financial statements or other information necessary to guage more accuratly against WP:CORP, I will stick with delete. The website is on a .mx host if you had trouble finding it its noted now in the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Company is non-notable, unfortunately. --Bigtop 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sango123 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Walker (author)

Joint nomination with White Vans and Candy. This was an incomplete AfD nomination. Appears to be a tiny walled garden: two articles that depend upon each other for existance. Notability not asserted but not matching a speedy criterion for the second of the two. Technical nomination: no opinion expressed by me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I really don't think either of them should be deleted, just expanded. --The greatest man in the universe 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User is blocked indef. Naconkantari 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. Columnist and column on www.thewrestlingfan.com, Alexa rank: 2,626,793. Dismally fails WP:WEB, which is the relevant criterion here. Fan-1967 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both The website itself isnt notable enough for inclusion, why would an article and its author belong? The James Walker article reads like vanity or a cut-n-paste from somewhere, is completely unsourced and unverified. Resolute 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete both, site fails WP:WEB, author fails WP:BIO. Also remove link from James Walker disambiguation page. And, yes, DYN-O-MITE! --Kinu ^t/_c 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Kinu. TheronJ 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. Naconkantari 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ransom Paid Apparel

Spam, plain and simple. Tagged for speedy but we still don't seem to have a "blatant spam" CSD criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable company fails WP:CORP. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's a dead-end page minus the AFD template, it's blatant spam, it's NN, it's a little bit of WP:VSCA. TrackerTV 01:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable spam. Some P. Erson 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. If a blanket "blatant spam" CSD criterion is being resisted, perhaps one authorized for creations by anon or new single-purpose users could be proposed? - David Oberst 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Also fails WP:NPOV Thε Halo ^Θ 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. There really should be a better spam policy. I notice User:JzG removed the spam links; I've long thought that is common sense, but have never seen a policy for that. Too much of a blanket policy may be too subjective, and anon can't create articles anymore. But single use accounts seem like a special case that should be accounted for. -Sanbeg 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn spam and advertising. G.He 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamvert. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to X-Men (TV series). --Ezeu 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Til Death Do Us Part (Part 1)

An incomplete AfD nomination being sent here because I don't know what it is about or what else to do with it. It's not a speedy delete and perhaps something is salvageable for the knowledgeable. But if not, then perhaps it should go. Comments? No opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to an article on the series? That seems to be the best bet. BigHaz 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Info
• Merge As per above, but move to the suggested title should it ever grow big enough as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or move to "Til Death Do Us Part". --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to X-Men (TV series) episode summaries per BigHaz (and reduce to two sentences). TheronJ 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thew Article in question does not exist. did you mean X-Men (TV series), --Edgelord 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to X-Men (TV series) per BigHaz --PsYoP78 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per PsYoP78. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge --Shultz IV 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, don't delete! Mallanox 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DinoHaven

The article was originally deleted because it was {{prod}}ed; therefore, I have been told WP:CSD will not hold up and that I should WP:AFD it. The subject does not presently seem terribly notable as far as companies go and it will most likely fail criteria based on WP:CORP. Also, Dinohaven (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article, calling into question whether this is a legimate article or something along the lines of self-promotion/WP:SPAM. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. It's a dead-end page minus the AFD template, it's blatant spam, it's NN, it's a little bit of WP:VSCA. TrackerTV 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for too many reasons to list, all of which have already been mentioned. fuzzy510 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pets Reunited Online

Bio of a gaming clan with 18 Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable group. Fabricationary 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fabricationary. Fails WP:NN. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. NN (fails WP:WEB). It's a little bit of WP:VSCA. TrackerTV 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable group. WP:BIO and also WP:ORG alphaChimp ^laudare 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN Kalani ^[talk] 01:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:RS to indicate notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete gaming clans with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No notability at all, fails WP:WEB and the Pokemon test. ><Richard0612 ^UW 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Fails WP:NN and WP:WEB. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reinstate the article when it becomes more notable (i.e. when it has perhaps a better-than-10,000 or 5,000 ranking on Alexa.com, or when it becomes known by enough people. How many people is enough, I couldn't say.) --Shultz IV 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's just a gaming clan, which is a non-notable organization. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only a very few gaming clans warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, and this simply doesn't appear to be one of them. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Probably vanity. Ace of Sevens 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. --Stellmach 13:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above --Peephole 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison Golf Club

Non-notable entity plus page is an orphan. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Only 46 Google hits for "Harrison Golf Club" Edinburgh. -newkai | talk | contribs 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per newkai. Kalani ^[talk] 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there is no consensus to delete this. Richardcavell 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Rom

It's the claim to fame in the game that's to blame. Fails WP:V, WP:Music and notability. Teke 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and failing WP:MUSIC, with a special "Zuh?!" for the nomination. -- Kicking222 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or possibly merge with other less notable Bemani artists and/or Bemani pseudonyms --Phoenix9 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I went ahead and merged the tracklistings into Bemani pseudonyms. Teke 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The bulleted list is supposed to be a list of pseudonyms. I am fixing. This, however, re-enforces my keep because if the article is deleted the songlist is removed. --Phoenix9 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - Kookykman|(t)e 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, music reaches a large audience. Also passed WP:MUSIC by releasing at least two album's worth of songs on a major lable. Kappa 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Interdance Records is owned and distributed by SAIFAM Productions, who created the artist. They are not a major lable; nor a minor Indie lable. It is self distribution. Teke 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Kappa. -TrackerTV 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• SAIFAM is presumably "notable" enough - a single article should be created for them, with their aliases merged into that article. --SPUI (T - C) 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / Or at least keep all the information in this article one form or an other. While not mentioned as a criteria for notability in WP:Music, a quick search with Google for both "Jenny Rom" and some song titles (such as "waka laka") shows that some of the songs mentioned have become quite a meme. I would argue that this article, or the information it contains, has some value. I searched for this information on the Wikipedia myself. (and was even disappointed the article wasn't larger) --SevenMass 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not cite sources and is not verifiable. --Wine Guy Talk 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not in itself a good reason for deletion. Unless it becomes clear no sources can be found, this only means the article needs some work (someone needs to add sources) (I'll do it right now, adding the SAIFAM website as a source. One can search their DB for "jenny rom" and find all the song titles listed) --SevenMass 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Quite to the contrary, lack of sources and verifiablity are two of the most important reasons for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the core principles of Wikipedia. One of the points made in that policy which may apply here- "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --Wine Guy Talk 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, in addition to previous comments, she has no entry on the Italian Wikipedia which I would have expected. Mallanox 20:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept after massive rewrite - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking outside the box

This is a page that I just get a strong feeling of "this should be deleted" and "this is unencyclopedic", and I can't explain why. Please indulge the lack of a good rationale. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a major psychological concept. The article could definitely be improved though. -newkai | talk | contribs 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Improve Agree with Newkai. Keep and improve the article. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, improve. Quite a big psychological concept. It's also used by Taco Bell as a slogan. TrackerTV 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be "Think outside the bun." --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A variant also makes the origin notable. -TrackerTV 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve per Newkai and TrackerTV. Kalani ^[talk] 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I have heard this phrase used often enough, so I think it fits notability. Q0 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move to Wiktionary. It's just a jargon definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TheronJ 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that Smerdis has rewritten. Good job. TheronJ 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TheronJ as dicdef, and not a good one. It's callled ""creativity", methinks, and the fact that I may have heard it used doesn't lend itself to meeting WP:NOT. Tychocat 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary of English idiomatic expressions, nor a venue for the publication of random thoughts on the catchphrases of motivational speakers. Byrgenwulf 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. We have articles on a number of idioms (although only a fraction of those listed in List of idioms in the English language). Compare this article with apples and oranges, beating a dead horse, and straw that broke the camel's back, just to name a few. The first is a great article, and probably a good goal for what this one could be. I don't want to imply that all of the idioms on the list deserve articles. On the contrary, there should probably be some rule of thumb for what constitutes a phrase that deserves an article. Just for comparison, "Thinking outside the box" and "Apples and oranges" each get about 2M Googles each, and the other two of my examples get about 200k each. Personally, I think this article easily meets the criteria for a notable saying, about which a lot could probably be said. -- Plutor 12:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Plutor --Mitaphane _talk 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Improve - Highly notable catchphrase. A number of companies use it or a modified version of it as a slogan, and used amongst corps specializing in training as part of their advertising. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 13:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, without prejudice to re-creation. At least when I looked at it, the page text consisted of an unsourced Reader's Digest style anecdote. Agree with all above that the catchphrase and slogan is highly notable and could support an article. Not certain that the text I read would be all that helpful for someone who wanted to write a proper one. Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have endeavoured to improve the article. There at least seems to be a consensus about the origin of the phrase. I have also embellished it with brilliant illustrations. Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Byrgenwulf and Smerdis of Tlön, again without prejudice against re-creation. A good article on this topic could certainly exist, detailing the origin of the phrase and its documentable history. However, said hypothetical article is so far removed from this one that "cleanup" translates to "complete overhaul". Anville 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep much-improved rewrite. Anville 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guaranix

Was prodded by me with reason "Wikipedia is not for advertising or promoting as-yet unreleased software", has been de-prodded with no reasoning given. In addition to the reasoning I gave when prodding, I am also concerned about the verifiability of this article - no sources are given, and all I can find in Google is a project on a Brazillian Sourceforge-a-like here (machine translation into English) which is shown as being in the planning stage. (Also, there doesn't appear to eb any suggestion that it meets any of the ciretia in the proposed WP:SOFTWARE, although that is currently only a proposal.) Delete unverifiable pages about minor unreleased software projects. -- AJR | Talk 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per note 1 of WP:SOFTWARE. Article was apparently created by the developer of the program. Kalani ^[talk] 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete spam. --Xrblsnggt 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - spam. --Bigtop 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted, still not notable. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Galaxy (computer game)

Video game spam, fails WP:WEB --Wafulz 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. But firstly I am am a frequent Wikipedia reader but have never contributed personally, and hence some of the comments on this page are extremely difficult to understand because of the slang and abbreviation they use. I feel this is somewhat intimidating for anyone that is not within the Wikipedia community to contest a deletion and in particular this one. As I am not an enthusiast, my opinion on the subject of deletion is therefore perhaps not quite as learned as others versed on Wikipedia definitions, however I do not feel that it is any less valid. I am a Dark Galaxy player, and this first came to my attention when Wafulz posted on the Dark Galaxy forums in a rather menacing tone threatening to delete the article if anyone reposted. I took offence at the aggressiveness and the threat of deletion and so I post here to try to prove there is no scheme by anyone associated with Dark Galaxy to advertise using Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there seems to be two accusations here; Advertising and lack of notability. Wafulz kindly links to a thread which purports to be part of an advertising drive, as evidence of a purpose to advertise, however Wikipedia is not mentioned at all in the thread until Wafulz does so. The thread is a little under three months old, however there has been a Dark Galaxy article on Wikipedia for several years. In fact, the DG Wikipedia article was in existence long before the DGWiki game manual, which is referenced by Tychocat as a source of information that has been lifted directly to the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia entry. However in all probability the text in the DGwiki game manual was lifted FROM the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia article. The article was originally posted by a group of DG players from SomethingAwful.com, and was an independent action unknown by the rest of the DG community and creators. There is no motivation or purpose to advertise, however that doesn't change that the article still may be considered as advertising. I believe the article can be changed if it constitutes an advert, and this is the action I would support as opposed to deletion. As for notability, I think that this is something extremely difficult to prove or disprove in the case of a game thousands and thousands of people have come into contact with. The original article was not written by an official from Dark Galaxy, though it was written by a player(s). I understand the questioning of this as DG has no great notability perhaps; however it does have notability nonetheless. I think an editing to lessen the effects of accused advertising is the best course of action. --Tatsyrup 15:27, 2 August 2006
  • Then it was my mistake to assume that you had been behind the article. However, it doesn't matter who is behind it- it still merits deletion for failing to be notable and for basically being an advertisement. Also, please add comments at the bottom of the discussion, not the top. --Wafulz 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It was prodded and deleted just yesterday. --Peephole 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

• Comment: Per WP:PROD#Conflicts, recreation after prod constitutes a contested prod, NOT a G4 recreation violation. -- nae'blis 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentWP:WEB is very narrow in its focus, and as such, it would be extremely difficult for a web-based game to get in however notable it was. -- Librarianofages 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• They are also in the middle of an advertising drive, and the vast majority of the links from search engines come from game directories, which the members added themselves in accordance with the thread I linked to. In the thread it also mentions the game is not finished. There are also really no mentions from notable sources anywhere online. --Wafulz 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• User:TrackerTV/AFD Info
• Delete again spam essay. --Xrblsnggt 06:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I look for the multiple non-trivial third-party articles with regards to judging WP:WEB and WP:CORP in context. As such, I don't see how one is more narrow than the other, nor that this game meets either. I'm finding a lot of directory listings, and that seems to be it. Also copyvio concerns, since at least the quotes in boldface type appear to be entirely lifted from here. Tychocat 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm pretty sure that WP:WEB is only for web sites, not web-based games. This still needs to assert notability, though. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no specific guideline for web-based games, so WP:WEB is the closest you can get to an appropriate guideline. --Peephole 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. Need I say more? ><Richard0612 ^UW 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There is some consensus that no matter the motivation or author, there is some advertisement in the article. I however disagree with the notability. Over the years, the article has been edited heavily and I no longer recognise it from when I last viewed it some months ago even. These edits have created the advertisement. I proposed that the article be changed to satisfy all that there is no longer any advertisement, merely information. I suspect some still have notabilty issues, however is this not a fair compromise? --Tatsyrup 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Reply Unfortunately, no. It's not just that it's an advertisemen; it doesn't meet notability standards- why should it be on Wikipedia if it's not notable? Online browser-based games are a dime a dozen, and this one has no reliable third party sources to indicate merit. --Wafulz 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only the most notable browser games deserve articles. For example, Kings of Chaos deserves an article simply for its success and history, let alone its popularity. Ogame has an article justly, because at last count (over 6 months ago) it had over 2 million active players in Germany, IIRC. Dark Galaxy... while I've heard of it, I don't think its notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable to me. 11kowrom 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why it seems notable please? Thanks. --Wafulz 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP The article needs to be written better BUT it should NOT be deleted at all. There are hundreds of computer games listed on Wikipedia, not to mention thousands of cartoons and other items that should be deleted if Dark Galaxy is deleted. It is a free ad-based game that is played by thousands of people around the world. The article needs to be better written but it should NOT BE DELETED. Charley 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The existence of articles that should be deleted does not merit the keeping of another article that should be deleted. Nominate them for AfD if you think they should be deleted (but look at WP:POINT first). --ColourBurst 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The game has been around for quite a long time, so has the article. I had it on my watch list but missed the prod. Much older versions of the article didn't read like an Ad. They could be restored. --Rikurzhen 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keepif this is deleted, then articles similar to this content should be deleted as well. Moreover, this game has been in existence for some time now. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if we re-write it to be less like an advertisement, it would still not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Was this article deleted for the same reason last time as well? I don't see how a game/article (specifically the article) existing for a long time makes it notable. --Wafulz 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to Comment - Pulling the "notible" card is an unwinnable argument for both sides. No matter how notable a topic, or in this case Dark Galaxy is, it is easy to simply dissmiss it with one subjective opionion that "that's not notible enough". This article needs to be rewritten, and wikified. It needs a NPOV, regarding the good and bad of Dark Galaxy, but does not deserve censorship. Delete this, then delete all under List of MMORPGs. Why not be amenable to rewrite? Charley 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Notability is not a "card" - it's a proposed policy on Wikipedia. However, it doesn't matter as I like to think of notability as an extension of verifiability, which the game can't meet (unless you can show me news sources talking about the game). --ColourBurst 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • From the thread posted earlier, I got the impression that the game wasn't finished yet. It doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on a browser-based game that hasn't even been completed- this is borderline crystal-balling. I've also noticed that several of the articles in the list of MMORPGs are also up for deletion, so I don't know if you've considered that. This is not in any way censorship- if the game becomes more popular, wins an award, receives mention from a reputable third party source, or becomes more meritable then it might be eligible for an article. At this moment though? I still say no. --Wafulz 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Its software not a website, hence its not about WP:WEB. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then it falls under WP:SOFTWARE which it doesn't meet either.--Peephole 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if this is deleted, please rename Dark galaxy (astronomy) to dark galaxy, as the DAB page will be superfluous. 132.205.45.148 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Revise to fulfil requirements To put a name to this, I am the author and I wrote this article to fill the void of the empty page associated with the 'Dark Galaxy computer game' heading which came up when I originally searched. I didnt realise that there had previously been issues with articles about Dark Galaxy, but the presence of a heading is somewhat misleading, both to those searching, finding no article under that heading, but also for me, as I would have avoided writing this if I had known of the issues surround the topic. If the topic is not worthy of an article, then why have a heading?? I dont mean to whinge, because if the article doesnt meet requirements then fair enough, but arrogant speculation about my intentions regarding advertising is unwelcome, as I am merely a player who enjoys the game, and also interested in contributing in many information repositories online, be it in a forum, a review, or in this case by submitting to wikipedia. The article is not meant to read like an advertisement, and I can assure you I have no ties with any member of the Dark Galaxy team in any way. I can't actually see where it reads like this. It's not like I have said 'this game is the best, come join up and play' or offered any incentive or tried to draw people in. I just tried to outline the game and how it works. I also don't see how it can be an advertisement when there is no commercial gain from a player signing up. It's free and there is no obligation to give anything in return for playing. What am I advertising? OK admittedly there is the possibility to join the premium membership, but that is completely optional and not necessary to access the FULL game. Also, the copyright issue, I was under the impression that an attributed reference, quoted and not attempted to be passed off as my original work was merely a quotation / extract, and not an infrigement. But it is not only the technical details which baffle me... I spent a significant amount of time authoring the article, and as commented, yes it was my first, but why should that be any line of reasoning for deleting my article? I was under the impression that input was an important part of wikipedia, and I didnt realise that fresh input from a new user would be so hostily met. It doesn't encourage new users to contribute, nor does it give me any inclination to try and submit again. As I said, I can accept it if the criteria are not fulfilled or I have overstepped the mark on a regulation. It is my first submission and I could not be expected to take in every last minute regulation plus I am only human, with an individual style. I followed the guidelines on first posts etc offered by Wiki and tried to follow the suggestions, but obviously I fell short. Due to references to regulations I have breached, I cannot offer a 'Do Not Delete' opinion, it is not my turf, nor my rules, but I do feel that rectification of the article to fulfil requirements would be a better course of action. On rereading I agree that the NPOV is an issue, as I have unknowingly written merely from a proDG POV, but that can eaily be changed. There are things about the game that I or any established player who understands the game could give contructive criticism for. The notability is a tough one since as mentioned, the game does tend to appear only in game directories, but surely there are reports which do exist, it is a big game (on reputation I mean) but nevertheless the fact that the game has run for I believe 5 years or more, from its humble beginnings to its latest incarnation with multiple servers running and has long had a well established user base of thousands of players actively involved. Apologies if I am barking completely up the wrong tree here, I am not well versed in the ways of Wiki but I am a little agrieved that a genuine and honest attempt to contribute has been met with such comments, and although I accept intrinsic faults in my style, I don't see a well founded basis for many of the rejections offered. Would someone who is a seasoned submitter mind revising the article to an acceptable state, or merely pointing out where it needs to be revised so I or someone can do it in the hope of achieving a satisfactory balance that everyone can get one with. --Beemat 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The "headline" for the article didn't exist. That is how Wikipedia works- if it cannot find an article under a name you have searched, it allows you to create an article under the heading. However, this is is no way an invitation to create an article for every heading.

And regarding advertising:

Dark Galaxy is a free online, browser accessed, turn-based strategy game using 'Turn-Engine' game creation technology. Right off the bat, the first sentence emphasizes the game's website and the fact that it is free. Then in the conclusion:

This is a basic and although it may not seem so, it is a very brief outline of a highly intricate and feature packed game, and many of the advanced features, strategies and methods have not been mentioned. The best way to learn and eventually master the game is to play. It is a great deal of fun, and a sense of achievement is easy to attain of enough attention is given to the game. Success is relative to the amount of time and effort put in, with the most successful and dominant players logging in multiple times per day throughout the whole round and entering commands even in the early hours of the morning if required. This is not to say that anything less is insufficient. A player can have just as much fun logging in once a day or even less, although this would rule out entering the upper player ranks.

There is significant emphasis to the reader that he/she should play this game. It reads like one long essay describing the merits of the game, why you should play, and how to play it- more importantly, none of these are reasons meriting a Wikipedia article.

The reasoning behind the deletion proposale is not because some of us don't welcome new users or hate this article- it's because we don't find the game to be particularly notable or verifiable, and these are two important aspects of an article. This is all in addition to its article reads like an advertisement. --Wafulz 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to comment The heading was indeed already there. I merely searched 'Dark Galaxy' and the heading 'Dark Galaxy (a science fiction strategy game) turned up at the disambiguation page. I never specified 'sci fi startegy game' thus I came to the conclusion that it was already there. If it had have been just 'there is no article...you can search for it yada yada yada' I wouldn't have written anything simply because there would probably be a reason it didnt exist. As to the idea that it is 'not an invitiation to create and article for every heading' I had no intention of writing under every blank heading, and I dont understand this comment since the way a topic gets covered is by someone submitting an article about it. If everyone thought 'oh its blank, I'd better not write anything' then where would Wikipedia be? This however is neither here nor there... I dont mean to get into a rant. About the article (which after all is what we are here for!) What I do agree now is that fair enough, I can see how that might be construed as advertising, and I see I should have been more objective and less opinionated and of a proPOV, but I still think that it warrants a rewrite more than deletion. I'm not fighting a cause just for the fun of it, because at the end of the day if it's gonna go its gonna go. I assume, like me, alot of people use Wiki to find out about endless number of things, and although its a game, the information is (or after a rewrite would be) more useful and extensive than the short blurb I have ever found elsewhere. Just wondered, if I did find 3rd party reports on the game (notable sources obviously), would linking them here go any way to show notability? Because although it has not been found by a quick Googling, it doesnt mean a) there isnt any, or b) the game isnt notable enough. By nature and genre, it is not going to be all over the headlines, just reported in related places. Regards --Beemat 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then that means somebody forgot to remove it last time it was deleted. Also, yes, reputable third party sources that are unaffiliated with the game would be nice to have. However, the key being that they should be reputable sources- not stuff like game directories, blogs, forums, etc. --Wafulz 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (Delete?) I can't really see what content in this article is worth saving. It's thing most unlike an encyclopedia article I've read today. --Stellmach 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite like crazy I don't buy the argument that is is advertising or spam; it looks like something written in good faith by a fan of the game that ought to be cleaned up, which I am more than willing to help with. syphonbyte _(t|c) 00:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a 6-year veteran of playing Dark Galaxy I am appauled that this game deemed not notable enough. However I am even more apaulled by the un-encyclopedic nature of the article. I will edit it to the best of my ability, then we shall argue about notability. --The Raven 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This game is played by millions worldwide, it certaintly is both notable and relevant to an encyclopedia.

--PhoenixPinion 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I think you're exaggerating a bit there. --Wafulz 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepIf there is an article for ogame then there is no reason not to have an article for DG it might not have as many users as o-game worldwide but DG has about as many users as ogame.org. 578 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Eden Fellowship

Nonnotable church, text reads like advertising/proselytizing. NawlinWiki 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete — Does not state the importance of the subject. I got 95 hits on Yahoo, 74 hits on MSN, and Google only had 29 hits. I would say that this is not notable. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did improve the layout of the article... what was there was really poor. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jesus spam. --Xrblsnggt 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, congregation of purely local interest. Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN and religious spam. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Reads lika a WP:VAIN article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement for an individual church, which is not notable on its own. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan wilton

non-notable comic book artist Richardjames444 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

• ?? I don't think this page should be deleted. It contains informative and relevant information on an important Australian comic book artist and their work (There are many similar pages on Wiki all in various stages of development). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.111.182 (talk • contribs)
• See Category:Australian_comics_artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.101.70 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, unverifiable at the least. (And, well, you know...) --Kinu ^t/_c 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Unless it can be renamed and pruned to meet requirements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.114.174 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Claim to fame is a comic on phosphorescent.com.au, which has an Alexa rank for the whole site (not just this comic) of 962,087. Also on graphicaction.com.au, which has no ranking at all. Fan-1967 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• The aforementioned comic isn't that website. It's not a web comic, and shouldn't be judged as such. This person has been published and distributed widely enough (and increasingly so) to support inclusion alongside other artists in Category:Australian_comics_artists. If they're all valid then so is a stub for this artist. But the experts should decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.141.217 (talk • contribs)

• If there is a published book, who published it, when? Where can it be bought? We need hard information. Fan-1967 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll go prepare information I think more suitable than that original article and return here tomorrow or explore aspects of how to start a new stub. Either way it will contain that information. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs)
• Delete There's a comic underground? Do they hide in fear of persecution from bully comics? --Xrblsnggt 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Probably, but I'm more surprised Alexa toolbar is used to guage relevance for inclusion in what I thought was a truly great encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Unfortunately, we can't very well go with the all-too-common, totally unsupported, claims that a website (or blog or forum) is enormously popular. What we have is Alexa, and Google/Yahoo searches for how many other pages link to it. If you have a better way of gauging websites, we'd love to see it. Fan-1967 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alexa, Google or Yahoo shouldn't be considered a valid means to test notability of a subject mainly present in the print medium. Alexa is also often grossly out of date.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.125.196 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Let me ask you again: Do you have a better means for testing notability? Seriously, I'm open to suggestions. Fan-1967 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, Wiki is getting so visited that possibly modern notability should be determined purely from searches/visits in Wiki itself alone, instead of relying on other websites (and so few and dominant). The beauty of Wiki is in it's open nature instead of being an echo of wholly commercial endeavours, and it would be bad for that to change. Get the gurus to set it up so you can use Wiki's logs! No other suggestion at this time. This suggestion refers to notability of subjects/websites only, not of actual article content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.170.143 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Wikipedia isn't that heavily used. Anybody can leave a post in a forum and get dozens of people to visit an article, and skew the numbers. Doesn't mean the subject is notable, or worthy of an article. Fan-1967 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have found one reference to him in the Newcastle Herald (his hometown paper) of 15 July 2005. The article reads "With Lawson as the writer and Wilton as the artist, Azerath was born and the comic book is now sold in comic stores throughout Australia and New Zealand. Published by Phosphorescent Comics, Azerath has found a dedicated following since the first issue was released in April 2004." It is marginally verifiable but I doubt he meets our notability guidelines yet and the article meets Geogre's law. Delete until he becomes more notable. Capitalistroadster 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because there is no assertion of notability that I can see, so it probably fails CSD A7. Kevin 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability. --Roisterer 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Warriors!

Contested Prod. Unsourced and unlocated fan fiction using anime characters from all over. Google is unhelpful, as the phrase seems to be used by a bunch of websites and gaming clans. Even if we knew where this was, fanfic is not notable. Fan-1967 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

• Delete, fanfiction is not notable per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. Page still in development.

'Myalysk 03:28, 2 August 2006

• If you delete, prepare to face the heat!.

Okaidou 03:35, 2 August 2006

• If you are going to delete this article, you might as well delete Neglected Mario Characters as well, because that also not real (yet).

Sunfie-kun 03:41, 2 August 2006

• I'm looking forward to Anime Warriors!, so don't ruin it for me, or anyone else for that matter.

Paparano 03:48, 2 August 2006

• Me horny

Lips|Lips 03:52, 2 August 2006

• Look! This is serious. Stop playing around! Either you're with us or against us. All in good respect, don't delete this article. Give it a chance to grow. Or else it's like killing off a newborn baby.

Sunfie-kun 03:59, 2 August 2006

• Note All the above entries were added, in the same edit, by User:Myalysk, the author of the article. Fan-1967 04:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This user also has a history of removing AfDs from articles that he works on. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment/Aside Looking at this user's contributions and talk page, s/he seems to do an incredible amount of vandalism. How come said user has never been blocked, and has only been warned once? -- Kicking222 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's been talken care of. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, blatantly non-notable fan fiction, fails WP:FICT, WP:WEB for its website, WP:RS for any of its claims of importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfiction is fanfiction. --Xrblsnggt 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Let us brave the wrath of the army of sockpuppets and slay this article! --Brianyoumans 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in a fire and warn the author for his sockpuppetry and AfD removals. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and after weeks with temperatures in the high nineties (Fahrenheit), I'm prepared to face the heat. --DrTorstenHenning 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:NN, WP:WEB, probably WP:NFT. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Fine! Delete it. Just go ahead and ruin my dreams! I frickin' hate you guys!!!!, DAMN!!!!!!!!!! Silver666 Actually by Myalysk 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic is pretty much inherently not-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Counterexample Neglected Mario Characters has history and substance, and so might be acceptable, but this article appears to have neither, and its subject isn't even uniquely identified. It was also quite foolish of the article creator to AfD-tag Gilmore Girls in retaliation; I'm sure I'm not the only one watching that article who only discovered this AfD because of this folly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I know I may be getting off the subject, but what do think of the plot for Anime Warriors anyway? Exodoun
  • It has potential, and it should be interesting to see how you manage to merge stuff as different as Spirited Away (my favourite movie ever) and Pokemon. Also, I hope Jigglypuff is in it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The vast majority of fanfics aren't notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• What are you talking about, I didn't create the fanfic.

Exodoun

• Delete author's history speaks for itself. Danny Lilithborne 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even though plot summary seems cool (really cool).

Exodoun

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after the restructuring. It's a decent spinout of the main subject now and merging it to the parent article would make it too long. All comments left after the change seem to agree. - Bobet 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of longest live Dave Matthews Band songs

This doesn't really seem like a stand alone article and seems as if it was better if it was somehow added to the Dave Matthews Band article. Lost Knob 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete per nom (Good band but this article does not merit separate inclusion) -- Alias Flood 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lomedae 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Dave Matthews Band article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Zr2d2 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per revision by Crashintome4196. --Zr2d2 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Dhawk1964 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Merging with the Dave Matthews Band article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge only if sourced. I really don't see how WP:V could be maintained in this section. Agne 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per revision by Crashintome4196. The different format works in this case. Agne 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it because I reformated the article with a different title and added a tours section, so this article can now be recognized as its own. Combining this article with the Dave Matthews Band article would make it way too long. -Crashintome4196 05:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.Si

Non-notable painter, as of now. Article was prodded, but, prod removed. Do not feel meets WP:BIO criteria of "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lomedae 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesnt even attempt to claim notability. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page- it was created by the artist himself. Steve 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Garnett (politician)

While I'm sure he's an awesome guy, there aren't enough reliable sources to write about him with a neutral point of view. He also doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Captainktainer * Talk 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete
    • Comment That's exactly how I found it. That reminds me, I need to notify the author. Captainktainer * Talk 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's good to know I'm not the only one who uses the random button so much. Erechtheus 05:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a former mayor of a cityof about 100,000 people. The article at http://www.thisiscolchester.co.uk/essex/local_interest/towns__villages/colchester/formermayor.html seeks like a reliable source. I have added it, and some other references, to the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, local politician. He was only a ceremonial mayor with no executive powers. In England every councillor has an opportunity to be this as they change every year. It confers no extra notability. Martín (saying/doing) 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable politician. --Bigtop 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mayors are notable to me. Attic Owl 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems appropriate to keep this article, specifically for references beyond being Mayor of Colchester. Davidbober 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, non-notable ceremonial mayor. Mayors are not inherantly notable anyway; Michael Bloomberg or Ken Livingstone-yes, 99.9% of the people who hold the title Mayor- no. --Wine Guy Talk 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hail the Name of Ghana

This article consists solely of the lyrics to Ghana's national anthem, and hence fails WP:NOT. An identical article exists on Wikisource at [3]. Therefore, this article should be deleted. NatusRoma | Talk 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What does this article ecen mean under that title. Seems to me like pure vandalism --Ageo020 04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The anthem already exists under its proper title at God Bless Our Homeland Ghana. This doesn't even make sense. Fan-1967 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, already at proper title per Fan-1967. I would say redirect, but the phrase in the title does not even appear in the lyrics... so no. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Note there are some inbound links where the anthem is described incorrectly as Hail the Name of Ghana MLA 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have corrected the link in Template:Ghana infobox. Looks like there aren't any others left. Fan-1967 14:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and pitch out the lyrics at God Bless Our Homeland Ghana per WP:NOT. Mr Stephen 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lyrics have been removed. There's a link to the Wikisource article with them. Fan-1967 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Bernoske

Non-notable person. 178 Ghits, many of which come from Wikipedia or mirrors, and some relate to a 1920s American football player. Claim to notability is founding an organization which also appears non-notable (19 Ghits when entered in quotes, and I personally have never heard of this group even though I live very near their headquarters) and playing semi-professional football in Belize (they don't have a professional league there). fuzzy510 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only source leads to a page that doesn't even mention him. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • At the foot, "this Belize.Net Web Ring site created by Dan Bernoske" Mr Stephen 17:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "social entrepeneur" - is that someone who mooches off of their friends for a living? --Xrblsnggt 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, NN and NN org. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Neutral Professional sportsmen are notable, but the article is unreferenced. With a rewrite and a source, I'd vote keep. (Write out five hundred times: "I will read the nomination") Mr Stephen 17:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in Samurai Jack

Second nomination. Cruft. Essentially just a trivia page. Any actually useful information should be moved to the Samurai Jack article or the individual episode articles. Chris Griswold 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Could Merge it into each individual episode, but I honestly don't expect anyone to do that. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Samurai Jack. As far as I can tell, these aren't references to individual episodes, so it's less work than it could be. fuzzy510 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Err, each heading represents a different episode, hence the links. tmopkisn ^tlka 09:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you actually bother to click, or even read, those links? Each heading refers to a different pop culture item that the show refers to. "Errol Flynn", "Japanese folklore & mythology" and "Powerpuff Girls" are pretty odd episode titles, no? --fuzzy510 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Under nearly every heading it says the episode in which referenced the heading. Jack 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The main SJ article is already too long, and while many of the references are OR, quite a few are not (Lone Wolf and Cub, Japanese folklore & mythology, Star Wars to name a few off the top of my head). IMO, the article perhaps needs to be renamed/moved to an "influences of Samurai Jack" or somesuch and merged with the same subsection of the main SJ article. Virogtheconq 07:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to respective episodes as trivia entries, redirect to Samurai Jack. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge As per wwwwolf, also we could remove the original research at the same time. Jack 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would usually say merge, but this is exceptionally trivial. --Kunzite 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merging would be acceptable, but "trivia" sections are already cruft-magnets; they are not something we want to encourage. — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V etc. --Wine Guy Talk 00:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge into each episode in a trivia section. - Wickning1 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because mere trivia isn't encyclopedic and therefore this trivia doesn't merit being merged anywhere. -- Hoary 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight Universe

Cruft. What useful information remains after factoring out what is already in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again should be added to those articles Chris Griswold 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dupe content, original research. --InShaneee 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unneeded. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an extremely unuseful and misleading article, because it suggests that every Batman story that Miller has written is part of the same "canon", distinct from the main canon, which simply isn't true. DKR and DK2 take place in the same "possible" future, true; but "Year One" is official continuity. Besides which, two books do not make a "universe". Seb Patrick 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge anything left into those other two articles. Attic Owl 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Seb Patrick said above is categorically false. Miller intends all of his stories to be read together: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[4] Spawn/Batman even mentions that it is a companion to DKR on the inside cover. The All-Star Batman and Robin page on Wikipedia mentions that he intends those books to be part of the same universe, which he himself calls The Dark Knight Universe. He also said that it is his own Batman: Year Two, his intended follow-up to Year One[5] . That said, all of his Batman work has an explicitly stated internal continuity regardless of which books are official DC and which aren't. Calling the article "unuseful" and "misleading," therefore, is both unuseful and misleading to this discussion. Furthermore, this article existed as Frank Miller's Batman for over a month without setting off any red flags. So why is the new title suddenly grounds for deletion? It is a resource for Batman fans and fans of Frank Miller to see which works he has written on the character and what chronological order they proceed in, from the beginning to the end of Batman's career. This information is valid, alluded to in previously existing Wikipedia articles, and unavailable on other pages. It serves as a reference page, much as the "List of _____ Episodes" pages do. It also fits into multiple categories on this website such as Batman storylines and Batman writers. It can also be said to be a subcategory of Miller's work, ala the View Askewniverse (which, by the way, gets its own page) in relation to Kevin Smith. Finally, the fact that this was earmarked for deletion because it supposedly contains "false" data is further proof that it contains previously unknown information to users such as those posting above. Apparently, few of them knew that there was a Dark Knight Universe or that Miller's Batman work is internally consistent. Furthermore, the article itself states and has always stated which of these stories are Official DC continuity and which are not, another reason some have earmarked this for deletion. Rather that have an itchy trigger finger (not to mention a belittlement of the author and his or her intent) perhaps we should look at this article and see that it indeed describes a specific, verifiable DC alternate storyline that is only alluded to on other pages, none of which describe its full scope. For all these reasons, the article should stay. SSantoro 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the reason it was flagged for deletion now and not before when it had another title is that, #1, the "See Also" section of the Batman article was re-organized, and #2, the newer name better reflects the article's contents. Oh, and it is largely OR. Either way, I agree with MIB that this should be merged into Frank Miller --Chris Griswold 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is original research and a tad crufty. However, it would be interesting to shrink and merge to Frank Miller (comics), but if and only if it can be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Update. I have added the citations missing from the page in order to satisfy any and all concerns of it's unverifiability. It's all there in black and white. The DKU does exist, there are plenty of Miller quotes concerning it, and it can be found being discussed all over the internet. SSantoro 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This really feels like original synthesis. The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it. The Telegraph piece doesn't mention continuity at all. The only piece that ties them together is the Quick Miller Minute on Newsarama, and that doesn't mention Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A Man In Bl♟ck said, "The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it." To refute, it does say: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his 'Dark Knight universe.' Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe." SSantoro 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any source but Newsarama tying Y1/HTB/ASB&R into a continuity, and absolutely nothing tying Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • From IGN.com: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his "Dark Knight universe." Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe."[6] SSantoro 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. I love having my name on something called that. I always loved the “Boy Wonder” line, before he was turned into the Teen Wonder, and almost a “Grim Robin.” But I just love the idea of a young Robin. That’s why I created Carrie Kelly in Dark Knight - I just loved the contrast between this stocky, tough, dark adult, and a colorful little pixie running around."[7]SSantoro 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • He's just comparing some of his newer work to some of his older work. It's an exceptional jump to call that some sort of fictional continuity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is a difference between a follow-up work and a shared continuity. Does he actually say "shared universe," for example? --Chris Griswold 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There are multiple explicit statements by Miller himself in those articles, validating there testimony. They are all clearly in the same "universe." It is literally impossible to construct a theory to account for all of the following statements to refute the existence of the DKU, which is a term, btw, that he himself coined.SSantoro 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • 1. Miller: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[8]
          • 2. Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder."[9]
          • 3. Miller: [in reference to HTB] "If Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder is 'Batman Year Two' this is 'Batman Year 1 and ½.' It’s quite a young Batman."[10]
          • 4. Newsarama: "Given that you’ve written the later chapters of Batman’s life with Dark Knight, and you’ve written Year One, and this is the unofficial “Year Two,” do you ever entertain fantasies of saying, 'F___ it, I’m going to write my Batman from his start to his end. DC, give me ten years, and let me go nuts'?" Miller: "That kind of fantasy flits through the mind every now and then, but essentially, I write stories when I really have a story I want to tell. I wouldn’t have taken this on if I hadn’t sat down, thought about what they were offering in terms of creative freedom, setting, and everything else. After looking at it all, I realized I had a story here. It does relate to my other stories, but I like the fact that yeah, I’ve done the other bookend, but to show Batman, and more to the point, Dick Grayson becoming a hero…when we first see him, he’s a frightened, traumatized little boy. This is the story I want to tell now."[11]
          • 5. "Spawn vs. Batman is a companion piece to DC Comic's The Dark Knight Returns." (Spawn/Batman inside cover). You would have to do a lot of logic leaps to pretend he's not talking about the same thing.
            • This is really tenative. He dodges a lot of those Newsarama questions, and referring to a book as a "companion piece" doesn't mean it's in the same continuity (e.g. V For Vendetta and Miracleman, which Moore has described as companion pieces on multiple occasions). This continuity seems to exist more in the mind of one Newsarama editor's opinion than Miller's mind, and constructing these sorts of fanon continuities from works that inspired later works smacks of original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
              • After all the posted quotes from Miller himself, the link to IGN stating the same information, and evidence from within the books themselves, you continue to insist that this article "smacks" of orginal research, i.e. fabricated information. The IGN site and Newsarama even reference "Comics in Context" as further evidence of the DKU. It's even well known by the fans, and you can see this if you frequent comics forums. Miller coined the phrase DKU, discusses it periodically (in multiple sources), and clearly considers his other Batman stories as a reference point whenever he writes a new one. According to another, no longer posted, Newsarama interview, Miller stated himself that he asked DC to let him classify his works officially under the DKU label, in which he would explore his own interpretation of the DC Universe. I know this is now unverifiable since the site has been taken down. Yet to support this, I reference again when Miller said, "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU."[12] This in and of itself proves the existence of the DKU, and that all of Miller's Batman stories are part of it. It can't be any clearer. SSantoro 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Frank Miller is not the publisher. DC is. DC decide which continuities tie into one-another, and which are canon. Notwithstanding the fact that Miller is the sort of person who will contradict himself in interviews over this sort of thing as the years go by (and the vagueness, as outlined by other commenters above, of some of the statements in interviews), it doesn't matter what he "intends" - it's to do with what he's commissioned to write, and what DC decide to do with it. Of all the stories mentioned in the article, Year One is the only one that takes place in official DC continuity, and DKR and DK2 are the only ones that are recognised as being in the same one as each other (if Miller has decided to go and tell his own "Year Two" with ASB&R, then he's going against everything DC publicised the All Star line as, as that line is categorically supposed to contain completely continuity-free stories, a tenet he's clearly completely reneged on). I still maintain that the article is misleading by suggesting that Year One and DKR are part of the same continuity - they are NOT. Year One is part of a continuity in which, for example, Tim Drake is the third Robin. DKR does not acknowledge Drake's existence, having Jason Todd as the second and Carrie Kelly as the third. No matter what Miller's intentions as a writer, the final say goes to the people commissioning and publishing the books - i.e. DC Comics. You mention yourself that the article used to exist perfectly fine under a different name - and frankly, I can't understand the reason for the change. "Frank Miller's Batman work" is a perfectly acceptable title and a perfectly acceptable article. "The Dark Knight Universe", however, is an inherently problematic one, because it leads to this very debate we're having here - which means it clearly isn't encyclopedic. I maintain that it's misleading, because it's based on one person's opinion of what is canonical, and also because with the recent announcement of the title of the next Batman film, it suggests a connection to that universe. Seb Patrick 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Your implication that the artist has no say over his own work and that only what DC decides matters is ludicrous. If I write a movie and publish it with MGM and then write a sequel and publish it with Fox, that does not mean that the movies are unrelated. Kevin Smith's Askewniverse is published by Miramax, Universal, and their subsidiaries. Since Miramax didn't publish Mallrats, does that mean that it has nothing to do with Clerks, despite what Miramax says? Miller's statements aren't inconsistent. He says and has always said that his Batman stories are connected. Spawn/Batman (published by IMAGE and not DC) says it's a companion piece to DKR, but according to your logic, that is impossible since DC wasn't fully in charge. Miller can certainly, without the permission of even care of DC, publish his own stories. That's why most of them are officially outside DC Continuity to begin with: Miller publishes what he wants, regardless of "official" DC Continuity. Year One contained some dramatic revisions to the DC Universe itself, and DC accepted it as tthe new origin for "Modern Age" Batman. Nevertheless, Miller is writing ASB&R to follow up Year One in his own way. The All-Star label is not undermined by this. They hired Miller and Grant Morrison to write ANY stories they wanted outside DC Continuity (i.e. giving the author's frreedom to choose). Miller chose the DKU and Morrison chose the Silver Age. Honestly, given the citations, direct quotes, and the multiple other internal Wikipedia references, it seems more like some people are in the mood to delete something, regardless of whether it requires deletion. My defense hasn't been weak or "original." I don't think it will hurt Wikipedia to leave it up, unlike a band vanity page or the like. SSantoro 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article but Merge the citable quotes into the main Frank Miller article. His opinion about his books is interesting in the context of himself as a creator, but there is no canonical basis for a "Dark Knight Universe" beyond his own opinion. The character is owned by DC Comics, not Frank Miller. As a wikipedia article this is clearly original research. -Markeer 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article and Merge the relevant cited information to Frank Miller per Markeer. I also applaud SSantaro's research here, but there's not quite enough there to say this deserves its own topic. --SevereTireDamage 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it. I'm not hellbent on keeping the article up, but I do believe that Miller's artistic intentions, as indicated in his quotes, deserve some sort of mention in some of the related articles. Though as per putting the name of an unofficial parallel storyline into an encyclopedia, that point is well taken. The thing that initially set me off was the implication that the article was based on fabricated "fanon," which is untrue. The author, not the fans, created, named, and continues to discuss the universe. Nevertheless, DC has (regrettably from my perspective) failed to give him his his own "universe" in an official, this has DC's stamp on it sort of way. Though again I wonder about Kevin Smith's View Askewniverse. The films are put out by different companies, yet maintain an inner continuity AND a Wikipedia article. "Yes," one might say, "but they are all products of View Askew Productions." Ahah! But so is Jersey Girl which, FYI, Kevin Smith and Wikipedia both mention as being OUTSIDE the View Askewniverse. That said, we really are dealing in a gray area here. SSantoro 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Miller's view of the DKU isn't encyclopedic, but could be Merged into his article. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article. Miller has said that all of his Batman stories follow the same continuity, and his interpretation of Batman is different enough from the mainstream writers of the DCU to warrant a seperate article. --CmdrClow 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe keep the spawn stuff, merge out some of it into frank millers page but otherwise we'll have Alan Moore's DCU, Grant Morrisson's DCU, Geoff Jones DCU etc. etc. etc. Palendrom 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alkali Lake

Redundant cruft. All the useful information is covered in X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Weapon X. Chris Griswold 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not even close to notable on its own. --InShaneee 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delicious cruft, ripe for the deleting. --Newt ΨΦ 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-men. Meatman22 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-men. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• No Redirect Conflicts with Indian Band in British Columbia, Canada. [13] 216.234.170.66 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Markeer 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-men or a List of X-men places type page per WP:FICT guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciaran_Walsh

Patent nonsense. No such books exist, no such records exist. User IP has vandalised pages in the past Dodge 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable. -- Mikeblas 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:HOAX. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Suspected WP:BALLS, due to lack of WP:RS. Walsh is off the booze for Lent... I say let's take him off the Wikipedia too. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bollocks --Xrblsnggt 06:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable and highly unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Fails just about everything going. As Xrblsnggt put it, utter WP:BALLS. ><Richard0612 ^UW 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No google hits for "Ciaran Walsh" "Only Her Rivers Run Free", so hoax. Mr Stephen 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, pretty close to patent nonsense. Definitely complete bollocks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

An enormous list of non-notable people. Why don't we just download the phone book? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Individually many of the people may be non-notable (although a substantial number are notable, including 4 Members of Parliament and other prominent political figures), but the list as a whole is notable, as these are elected officials of a student body which has its own article. Furthermore, there are articles related to the various factions and student bodies, and this provides context as to how much of a role those student associations and factions have in NUS. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note It's also information which, while not being made up, can't be found anywhere else. If this page is deleted there will be no place where a person can find information about who were NUS office bearers, which is very much relevant to the Australian student movement and a lot of people are interested in. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the part where that becomes our problem. So you can't find the information elsewhere. Tough cookies, it's still inappropriate here and should be dealt with accordingly. Delete. --Agamemnon2 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unless these individuals are notable in their own right. Admitting it can't be found anywhere else kind of makes it hard to verify, as well. This information should be on their website and not here. --Kinu 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Few of these people have yet achieved any notability in Australia. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"
• Delete per Kinu. Fagstein 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The people in the list are not red linked so there is no undue claim of notability, though I do question if the list complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability if the information is not available elsewhere. --Martyman-(talk) 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. and offer it to their website. pschemp | talk 06:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How do we offer it to their website after it's deleted? Is there a procedure for "moving" WP content to another site? - Synapse 22:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most university students have no idea who thse people are - only 10% vote in student elections, and apart from the president - they are all unknwon even within their community.Blnguyen 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• I would argue for Keep as it seems to be more significant than many other articles on the site and while many of the past office bearers are not notable now, it is only a matter of time before more are notable (although, speaking as one of the people mentioned in the article, I doubt I will be one of them) and Wikipedia will be seen as having anticipated their rise to power. --Roisterer 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP is not a crystal ball. pschemp | talk 08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you even read the article? It's not about future people - it's a list of past members. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...maelgwntalk 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Information about the elected members of a national body is encyclopaedic. - Synapse 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a national organisation. I imagine some people will want to make use of it. But ask for verification. Tyrenius 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments above. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Zunaid
• Weak Keep. Might be a national organization, but is going to need better justification than it has now if it's going to remain, by the looks of the opinions here.--み使い Mitsukai 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Next stop, Canberra phone book, stand clear of the closing doors Avi 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment many student leaders go on to become political leaders. but the NUS is not that relevant to ppl's lives - most students probly have never heard of it. --Sumple (Talk) 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They have a substantial presence at RMIT, most students are familiar with them. (Clarify) with the organisation and what they do, although they don't know many of the people involved. - Synapse 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - none/very few of these people are significant by themselves, why should we have a list of them together? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or slight merge. This list is of interest to a limited number of people and is potentially very large or indefinite in size. In other words, it is listcruft. Should be on their website. Stifle 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is of interest to plenty of people - it's particularly informative about the early careers of the quite a few people who have gone on to achieve significant success afterwards. It's also very definite in size - as the NUS has only existed since the late 1980s, it's nearly complete as-is. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've been thinking about this a bit since this discussion started. I understand people's concerns about this not being encyclopedic, and it is true that this list isn't. So it's alright that it gets deleted from Wikipedia. However, I've found that it's been very successful in getting people to add extra information which would never otherwise be compiled, and I attribute that to it being posted on a Wiki. So I was wondering if people have a recommendation for another Wiki that could be a useful host for such a list, so I can continue to work on adding to it? Ben Raue (Talk) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't take this elsewhere. It's perfectly suited to Wikipedia. Ambi 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I won't take it elsewhere unless it gets deleted. I was just trying to find a way that I can still work on it in Wiki form if Wikipedia won't have it. But yes, I'd much rather do it within the Wikipedia project. Ben Raue (Talk) 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There's always a subpage in your user space, which people can still freely edit... i.e., something like User:Braue/NUSA Officers. I don't see any harm in keeping this there, as long as you don't link any articles to there (from is all right), or have any free use pictures there. --Kinu 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • • What on earth is the point of deleting a page which is likely to be a helpful reference source for a number of articles on very notable people, as well as an interesting read in its own right? Ambi 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's perfectly encyclopedic, and quite interesting. It's highly verifiable, as most of these people have received press coverage within their terms and since, and in terms of the national officebearers, quite a lot of press coverage. Quite a few of these people have gone on to notable success (particularly as MPs). Ambi 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion. The article asserts its importance and its content is verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 10:17
• Keep. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to permit long lists of such data today. The information in this page is effectively a part of National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Were the article not to be kept the correct solution would be to merge the content into that article. However, if it were merged someone would just unmerge it right away due to the length. The long term maintance issues of such lists may someday result in their removal, but that isn't our practice today... and one by one AFD discussions isn't the right way to change the project's practices. --Gmaxwell 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Gmaxwell. I'm still concerned about the size of the article, but it's very young, let's give it a chance to grow (in quality, not size) a little while yet. Turnstep 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, elected leaders of an important national body, and a large proportion are notable of themselves. I would normally vote merge, but considering the length, this should stay separate. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Certainly needs some work, though. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have thought about it a bit and read through other peoples opinions and have come to the conclusion that it can't hurt to keep it. --Martyman-(talk) 10:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briogaid Dearg

Non notable fan group, linked by one page. Seems avanity project. Suggest merging into Shelbourne F.C.

• Nomination was mine. Forgot to sign post --Dodge 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I get 61 Ghits, a lot of nice chatter between fan blogs, but nothing to meet WP:WEB. I see no evidence of vanity. Tychocat 06:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete don't think a merge is necessary Dlyons493 Talk 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brahmin influence on other religions

Delete as a straight-up WP:NOR violation - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely unsourced, and rather unnotable. Although, I wouldn't object to a properly cited article on the subject if one were made. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is disjointed, unsourced, POV, ethnocentric and has not been improved in any manner despite many attempts to get contributors to subscribe to WP guidelines for contributions and is descending into warring edits over non-compliant material.--Tigeroo 08:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and a soapbox for touting a personal point of view on things in essay form. Byrgenwulf 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete. This article is not ethnocentric as the chauvinistic neo-Buddhists are trying are convince Wikipedia authorities it is. The neo-Buddhists are always insaulting Brahmins for the dissapearence of Buddhism in India and when Brahmins show how much historical Brahmins have contributed, the neo-Buddhists try to cover it up from history. If the case is that this article is unsourced I can source everything, but this article has to remain to show the world the jealousy of the neo-Buddhists. -- maleabroad

• Delete. Sorry, but it's still original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article needs to be deleted. It is clearly evident that this article has been put up with a complete political agenda. there is no encyclopaedic value of this article.--Yeditor 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Original research, POV, and unbalanced, e.g. it utterly ignores the fact that non-Hindu religious traditions have sometimes been critical of Brahminical Hinduism in practice. There might be an interesting article in here, but this isn't it. Anirvan 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smeek

This would appear to be a classic case of WP:NEO. The term is apparently in popular use at one forum. A quick check of the first couple pages of search engine results shows no verifiable secondary source. To the extent that this is verifiable, it fails WP:OR Erechtheus 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Hetar 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Several entries at Urban Dictionary, however none of them pertaining to this particular definition, also very few google hits that use it in the context presented by the article. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are several, unrelated entries on the urban dictionary. Looking on google, not many people using it in this context. --Xrblsnggt 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Urban Dictionary, being a web site that encourages people to submit things that they have just made up, is not a source. Uncle G 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Never said it was... tmopkisn ^tlka 06:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and tmopkisn. - makomk 11:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCLP2

Non-notable material created by fans for a game. No reliable sources exist. So sign of significant review or syndication. --Hetar 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom along with CCLP2 levels. Fails WP:V and probably WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above, similar to other custom games released for Warcraft III, etc. All but two of which have been deleted. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, O.R. Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Lopacki

hoax or non-notable artist. No evidence of claimed notability given or apparent. Ghits: [14]. Fails WP:BIO --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable at the least. Claims in article suggest subject does not meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the 61 Google hits appear to have anything to do with this article, and a quick Amazon search fails to provide any books written under her name. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also no citations (books printed and rights activist with no citations?)Pinkstarmaci 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Good Ass Job

{{prod}} tag was removed without discussion. The topic is a substub about an album to be released in approximately two years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mikeblas 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom, no assertion of notability, and obvious crystal balling. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Per nom, Does not assert the importance of the topic. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry; I forgot to point out that the article itself says "There is currently no set release date." -- Mikeblas 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notablility and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There is no reason for its deletion. This album has been confirmed by Kanye West himself. Does it matter if there is no set release date? I don't see where there is any "crystal-balling". --Shawn88 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shawn88, there is no guarantee that the album will be produced at all - Kayne West can confirm it but he can also change his mind, "retire", and so on. Please read WP:NOT. Srose (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The world could end too....... If you delete this article then you should delete every other article about upcoming albums, books, movies, etc. --Shawn88 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball. Worth a mention in passing at the end of the Kanye West article, but not notable enough for its own article. -- The Anome 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_book_seven If a Harry Potter book with no release date or even title can have it's own article then why can't this album? Please give me a valid reason and I will gladly shutup. --Shawn88 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That article is there because of the amount of information available about the book, and published specualtions about what it may contain. All that you know about this album is what its name is, that's not enough to save the article. tmopkisn ^tlka 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks a bit Crystal-Ballish to me. Full of predictions, and the rest is about the previous books, just filler to make the article big. Also the author could change her mind, or retire, and so on --Shawn88 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a difference between crystal balling and sourced predictions. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is pure crystal balling. HP Book 7 has been confirmed, the author has indicated that she will write the book, all seven books have been confirmed for many years now. This Album has been verbally confirmed, no release date, no information whatsoever. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Incase you haven't realised, "A Good Ass Job" has been confirmed by the artist. What's the difference? All 4 of Kanye's albums have been confirmed for a few years aswell. Please tell me the difference. --Shawn88 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. Bring it back when there's a release date and official publicity. GassyGuy 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crystal ball. --Wafulz 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was

[edit] A Good Ass Job

Uhh, nominating again, for some reason this wasn't deleted. Crystal ball, etc per first discussion --Macarion 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted. This is a recreation. Speedied. When the album comes out, then we can have this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy (word)

WP:NOT (dictionary term) and generally unencyclopedic, not to mention free of almost any useful content. David Oberst 05:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per my nom. If this falls into any sort of speedy category as a dictionary entry I'd also endorse that, should an admin do so. - David Oberst
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it were, this is very redundant in light of Democracy. I wouldn't mind a speedy either, but I don't see a WP:CSD that fits. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You might be able to argue A1, but I'm not going to try. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but NOT speedy, why would we need that for an article that existed like this for over a year and is not disruptive in any way? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary.--Isotope23 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete - The article kind of had a point in its existence until a year ago when the list of parties with the word democratic in the title was removed. There may be a week case for putting it back in, but otherwise delete. --BobFromBrockley 14:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UseModWiki

Article does not assert notability per WP:WEB Anadirgrowlslayer 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article does not have to meet the criterion of WP:WEB, as it isn't a website or forum, but instead a highly notable wiki software. The article meets WP:SOFTWARE due to several published articles on the subject, the hundreds of sites hosted using the software, and the fact that it was developed by Clifford Adams (notable software developer). tmopkisn ^tlka 06:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tmpokisn. Not a website, so WP:WEB is completely irrelevant. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - WP:WEB isn't appropriate since this is software, and it may just scrape through WP:SOFTWARE (not to be confused with WP:SOFT, although apparently Wikipedia did originally run on this, which make it notable by itself). - makomk 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and improve to proper encyclopedic standard: this is an important piece of software, and has its place in Internet history. -- The Anome 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. UseModWiki is not a website, but a WikiEngine. Wikipedia started out using UseModWiki. Mediawiki is derived from it. MeatballWiki currently runs on it. Oddmuse is a UseModWiki descendant.
• KeeP. QuiteALotOfWikis used to use this WikiEngine. Clearly meets SoftwareNotabilityCriteria. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happenings magazine

This article cites to no sources about the magazine in question. Even if taken at face value about what the magazine is, this sort of locally focused free weekly publication is not notable. Erechtheus 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very few google hits, most of which mention the magazine only once, most of which are either a list of local magazines, or someone's personal blog. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close to satisfying WP:V. ><Richard0612 ^UW 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V with no WP:RS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable. Auditrix 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worker democracy

This article seems to have no notable basis as a real-world concept. It describes something that sounds like a specific theory (references to information technology impacting workplace, a "philosophy", etc), but provides absolutely no sources, proponents, or evidence of notability. I can find nothing out on the net that could be used to substantiate the article. The article was created two years ago, by a user whose sole two edits were this article, and has received no other content edits. For the hesitant, this is not the legitimate workplace democracy article. David Oberst 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per my nom. - David Oberst 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The term receives over 12,000 Google hits, and is explained in detail in several online articles. All of which, by the way, are very interesting. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But none seem to have anything to do with "information technologies" being "integrated into the organizational structure of businesses", "the cost of communication decreases", etc., which is the specific concept this article is purporting. "Democracy" is such a widely and variously used word that many common adjectives such as "worker" are going to pull up hits when combined with it, and not all phrases are going to share a coherent core concept to base an encyclopedia article on. In this case, I've found nothing that would apply to this article. If the above examples were to be used as the basis for some other article called "worker democracy" at a later date it would be unrelated to the current text, and this AfD will do no harm. - David Oberst 07:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment I'm seeing that tmopkisn ^tlka believes this is a different concept from workplace democracy? is it? I'm seeing enough overlap that I don't know a merge would be appropriate. Could the difference, if any, be explained? Tychocat 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In answer to both comments, the articles I cited all seem to be talking about the same thing the article is, even if they do not mention specific details. Also, Tychocat is right, I saw alot of overlap as well, which is why I was very careful when pasting these links. I'll consider changing my vote, due to Oberst's comments, and to the fact that I was never really 100% behind this article in the first place. I'd like to think that those links might be of some help to other voters, since they took so long to find, but if they aren't, so be it. I did my best. tmopkisn ^tlka 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and/or neologistic expression and/or redundancy, etc. etc. Byrgenwulf 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nod to tmopkisn ^tlka's research, but I don't think the concept warrants a separate article from workplace democracy. It would have been useful to know the original writer's mind in this case, but since his/her last edit was two years ago, I don't expect we'll get that expertise. Tychocat 12:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Perhaps redirect to workplace democracy and if anyone feels there is something specific about worker democracy, they could insert a mention of this in the workplace democracy article? --BobFromBrockley 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Spooky Men's Chorale

I'm not sure about the notability of this group. Few Google hits anyway... --Missmarple 06:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies WP:WEB due to the band's large amount of press covserage, as shown here, and a nation-wide U.K. tour. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When I said WP:WEB, I meant WP:MUSIC, sorry about that... tmopkisn ^tlka 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. Admittedly gets only 117 distinct Ghits, but appears to meet guidelines per making a national tour of Australia, and a tour of Britain. Tychocat 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:V w/o any WP:RS. Doesn't seem notable with only 353 google results. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pd_THOR. According to this fanpage(?) the UK tour hasn't happened yet. Don't know if this qualifies for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acyso 23:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment with a nod to Acyso, I need to have my research verified. Can someone check my research regarding the Aussie tour? I'm thinking that for WP:MUSIC, Australia is a large enough country to satisfy a tour of a "medium to major" country. If that still stands, my nom is unchanged. Tychocat 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't confirm the Australian tour, and I now realize that the UK tour hasn't even started yet. However, they still meet WP:MUSIC thanks to press coverage, and will meet another one in early September. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • tmopkisn, the press coverage you describe is from the band's own webpage. Can you verify these articles independently? Also, of these four articles, only two of them (the one from The Courier-Mail and the Sydney Morning Herald) come from newspapers with articles on Wikipedia. I can't say that just because a band has been mentioned in two large papers makes it particularly notable. Acyso 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I admit, it's is somewhat of a grey area, and I guess it depends on your own personal beliefs. Anyway, I was only able to confirm one of the two "notable" reviews [15], although to see the actual text you would have to pay. The Courier-Mail's Server was broken or something, so I couldn't use the search function, although I doubt it'd still be there anyway, as it was from December of 2004. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. I'm basing this on good faith that the reviews and articles on their website are real and actually appeared in the publications they're supposed to have appeared in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Andrew Lenahan, under what criteria on WP:MUSIC are you using to justify keeping this article? Three of the articles from their webpage ^[1] are written around March 2006, presumably the time of their tour of Australia, but none of them actually mention a tour of Australia. Acyso 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there're from Australia, so I see little reason to doubt that they've toured there. Besides, there's also their UK tour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't find any explicit source that mentions that they have had an Australia tour; as I've said, none of the articles on their website confirm nor deny this. Acyso 13:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symphoniq Corporation

Spam for non-notable corporation --Xrblsnggt 06:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. as advertisement, article was originally written by a company employee, who in an edit summary of Symphoniq TrueView admitted that the article was a "Brief summary of my company's product." Due to the fact that it was added by a complany employee and it's low notabality, I've prodded Symphoniq TrueView as well. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 155 distinct Ghits on firm, mostly their own white papers and vendor listings. No third-party multiple non-trivial articles. Confirmed admission article written by an employee (for future reference, on the page history for Symphoniq TrueView). parenthetically, there's no prod indication on the Trueview article at the moment. Tychocat 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, whoops, sometimes I say I'm going to do something, but never get around to it. ANyway, it's there now. tmopkisn ^tlka 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HHO Gas

WP:OR, WP:HOAX, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination). This is simply another rehash of another Brown's gas that tricked the local media with smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sertrel 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Even after CrazyRussian's modifications, I still maintain my nomination for deletion, and I agree that perhaps it should be WP:SALTed as well, since Brown's gas hoaxes will constantly re-emerge. On second thought, I propose a compromise. Since we all agree that this is a Brown's gas hoax, why don't we just make this a redirect to Brown's gas? We can even protect the redirect. We could even do the same for Aquygen. boyohio02, would you find this acceptable? Sertrel 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I appreciate the idea to redirect the article, however, the only problem with the above said compromise is that HHO Gas is not a Brown's gas. This was reported in the cited sources of Santilli's International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Paper, and the Company website science page. So I think that would be an even more misrepresentative change to redirect people to the Brown's Gas page than to keep the original page. boyohio02 18:37 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the above. Probably merits a speedy delete. --Brianyoumans 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Update: As requested, I have reviewed the reverted article and considered the arguments below. I still think HHO Gas itself is a hoax; the only question is, is it a sufficiently notable hoax to need its own page? (Aquygen gets only about 900 google hits.) And would the authors be satisfied with a rewrite that made it sufficiently clear that this was notable only for being a fraud or delusion? I doubt it. I still vote for deletion. --Brianyoumans 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Further update: I would oppose a redirect to the Brown's gas page. I don't think the Brown's page is very good either. --Brianyoumans 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per voting at other Afd's. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep. Per removal of duplicate material and several comments by other users. tmopkisn ^tlka 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and other afd histories. Can something be done about the other articles, such as Oxyhydrogen flame or the HHO redirect? I admit to being unclear about the process. Tychocat 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please, and possibly salt, since these articles seem to spring up like mushrooms after a thunderstorm. Byrgenwulf 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Still delete after the reversion mentioned below, because the concept is still bollocks, whether it's promoted by a dodgy group or not. Byrgenwulf 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
• Comment: I have reverted the reposted Aquygen stuff to a pre-Aquygen version, which obviates most or all concerns of the nom. Please re-evaluated your votes accordingly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rehash of Brown's gas. --Christopher Thomas 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is the second article relating to new hydrogen technology which has been recommended for deletion. There is obviously an unknown but disturbing agenda at work here. This is user intimidation. There is no excuse for what is being done to me. I have worked long and tireless hours working on this article, finding sources for the information, discussing both sides of the issue to ensure article neutrality, citing all sources used, ensuring that the sources are credible reliable and verifiable. I have studied this subject extensively to ensure accuracy. IF this page is deleted, I contend that it has been done so based not on sound wikipedia policy, but on personal disagreement with the article's ideas and facts. This represents what may only be described as user intimidation and bullying. I have also studied the rules and guidelines for Articles for Deletion (AfD) and this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. I will not be silenced by intimidation tactics by both users and administrators of this website. I have not committed any infractions or violations of the wikipedia policy, and my article does not deserve to be discredited and deleted as though the article which was written is my own personal view. The article is not original research but a compliation of information gathered from multiple credible and verified cited sources. boyohio02 18:00 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional detailed explanation was moved to the AfD talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks Mr Stephen 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Keep The company responsible for this Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. has had research funding from several investors since 2000. Financial reports can be found through a simple google search. There apparently are several patents filed with the USPA for an engine claimed to generate this gas, although that is no guarantee that the technology is viable. I do however find it hard to believe that a "hoax" company would remain viable for so many years without one if its investors asking pointed questions. E.G. UTEK (a UK based company) claims 10% in Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. and is currently listed in NASDAQ and the NYSE. One would imagine that any company, whose goal is to make money, making such an investment would expect a return or at least evidence that a return was probable. Innocent until proven guilty. If you can't disprove the claim then the logical response would be wait to see if they can prove it.User:Anon 13:37 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is 66.60.182.8 (talk • contribs)'s first edit.

• Delete No need to help the hoaxers. It would make sense to have an article if it were a notable hoax, but any notable information is already covered in Brown's gas. JoshuaZ 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and burn. WP:HOAX. Heck, it's WP:BALLS! Lazybum 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• It will be funny to see if all the people here are either a) correct in their assumption that this is a hoax, or b) wrong and made to look like fools when they are driving down the street in their aquygen powered cars.. lol. Time will tell.. boyohio02 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brown's gas, which even includes some information on Aquagen. - RPIRED 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could stand a redirect to Brown's gas but, since these charlatans are trying to pretend that this isn't Brown's gas, it seems to me that a delete (and at this point, a enthusiastic salting with some flaming Brown's gas) would seem justified. Dipics 13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ceremoniously blast this page with dynamite per WP:HOAX. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AS per the previous statement regarding "blasting" the page with dynamite per WP:HOAX. From the Official Wikipedia Policy: Verifiability, not truth One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

The article which was reverted and removed addressed those uncertainty and controversy. Viewing the history will show the added section on the controversy. The Reputable Publishers and Reliable Sources provided are for Verification purposes only. I cannot confirm the findings of these sources, and as it is stated, that would be original research, and that is discouraged. As per the peer-reviewed scientific publications, I have listed that journal as the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9 , August 2006, Pages 1113-1128. and specifically at the following website. | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006 and | International Journal of Hydrogen Energy- Full Article

• Speedy delete! - With the exception of the last link (which is to a web forum thread), and a link to a Pdf file that has nothing to do with the topic, all of the other links come up as "not found". This is a hoax, the stuff added above this comment being added by the IP user who inserted this article, and apparently has vandalised elsewhere (see User_talk:24.159.119.10). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Point of Reference: This is the last comment I am going to make regarding this Subject! At some point when this technology is more readily available and becomes common knowledge, The article will be rewritten anyway so If its deleted, so be it... Therefore I am not going to waste my time with people who believe that EVERYTHING about this gas is a HOAX. I am however going to state for the record that this is in fact a real product. You can argue that this gas may NOT be a Revolutionary New form of Energy, but NOT That this is a Real Product. You can call up Donald Wann[16] with The Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky (a state employer) and ask them if they are using HHO Gas, They will tell you Yes. I called them and confirmed this. Fact is that HHO Gas is being used in commercial applications. The overwhelming reason that this article was submitted for deletion was on the basis that it is a HOAX. I submit that if that is the case, I have been fooled by one of the most Elaborate and Expensive Hoaxes in history!! For anyone who is interested in more information, please view the following video from Google Video. It is 15 minutes long, and there are interviews with credible people about their use of HHO Gas. Video - Approx. 15 min You can also download the powerpoint presentation provided by the Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky. | Powerpoint Presentation by Fulton County School District and Here | News Article from Fulton County School District

boyohio02 00:30 5 August 2006 (UTC) this is a working link for the interviews [17]

Keep

Opinion, opinion, opinion, stay away from opinion, stick to deletion criteria.

Ronald A. Knight guest.

I say KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot believe that here at WIKIPEDIA there are those who cannot follow simple research protocols such as following simple LINKS! I believe that the videos, and testimony speak for themselves! If you REALLY think this is a hoax, why don't YOU call the company, get references, etc. and find out for yourselves!

Ernest Cann-editor-THE SONS

1st contrib [18] - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this, it's a total hoax, this is the kind of stuff that makes people question wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Streveln (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I must mention that this is the user's 1st contribution, even though I do agree with him/her. --Lazybum 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Fairbanks

Not Notable; doesn't actually seem to be associated with Billionaires for Bush anymore, and otherwise has few verifiable reasons to be notable (check the history if you want to see what someone, probably BF himself, wrote about him; see also my comments on the Talk page --Brianyoumans 06:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nice work with the research on the discussion page! -- Mikeblas 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 15 minutes of fame as a political prankster. Good research by nom. Tychocat 08:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kafziel 12:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoto

Protagonist for a non-published game. The official game website has only "concept art" and a "demo reel". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creator, Josh Viola, does not seem to be a notable game designer, so it wouldn't even fall under notable (WP:NN), anticipated upcoming games (e.g. Metal Gear Solid 4) Sertrel 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 07:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A search for " bane of yoto" got three hits, two from the website, and a third where the forum-writer yclept yoto shows a character concept from "his" story. Good luck on the game, guys, but this is not the place to come to become famous. Tychocat 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V. An self-published website from the game's creators does not qualify as a reliable source. --Allen3 ^talk 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete* Firstly I have no relationship with the YOTO team, I'm just a fan, I can't wait for the game to come out I saw there booth at E3, & to the last poster like I said before I'm not trying to Promote the game I have no affiliation with the YOTO team. I'm just a fan & thought since Wikipedia.org is about everything this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CheezyFrog (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia isn't about "everything". There are standards for what type of information that can go into an article (mostly information that can be verified through reliable sources. --ColourBurst 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable character in a non-existent game. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. AMHR285 ^(talk) 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe this can be recreated once the game is actually out as has independant reviews. Ace of Sevens 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and second the Comment that Wikipedia is not "about everything." --Stellmach 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--

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

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

The result was '. --Ezeu 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Stokes

Not notable enough to have a page in wikipedia. Aminz 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Google show about 815 hits for "michael stokes' +programmer, most of which are his resume as per the WP article. There are also a lot of reprints of a bio which begins, "On November 6th of 2002, Michael Stokes, programmer of Shareaza, released version 1.7 of his software..." The relentless appearance thereof looks like advertising, and reprints of a press release. I am unable to find multiple non-trivial third-party articles about him per WP:BIO. One product he's associated with, gnutella2, is notable, and I hope he's mentioned therein. Per WP:BIO, I do not see enough notability for his own article. Tychocat 08:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to shareaza. He's probably associated with the software more often than not anyway. --ColourBurst 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procode

No assertion of notability. Sounds like advertising: "ProCode is the user-friendly, warm-yet-knowledgeable community you've been searching for your whole life." Edcolins 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I note the link to the website only has the following message: "ProCode is no more, please visit CodeBlank.net for all your programming needs. We have decided to move onto hacking..." This website also has a posting that "I am leaving programming to Codeblank now. Procode was not working out, and it got a bad start..." Parenthetically at this point, I would note the creator of this article is named Proc0de, and thereby point out possible WP:VAIN concerns. Tychocat 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fang Aili. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popomatic

nn spam - Delete --Spring Rubber 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't know that it fits a speedy for "Patent nonsense" since it claims to be an indie music "bible" at the end. As such, fails notability for Alexa (below 100,000) and only 9990 hits for Google (allowing for the numerous game-store and eBay listings for the "Popomatic Trouble" game). The site has only been in operation since June, 2006, but this brings up to three final points: WP is not a web directory, you don't come here to become famous, and WP is not a crystal ball to predict fame and notability in any case. Tychocat 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Spam --Lomedae 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lomedae. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 13:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del fresh copyvio cut'n'paste. `'mikka (t) 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamcracker

Looks like a bunch of spam to me --Spring Rubber 07:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• copyvio

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology Democracy

This article appears to be a position paper or essay or some sort, not an encyclopedic article. There appears to be no generally notable concept of that name being reported on. The sole reference sourcing appears to be the usage at ITDG.org/Practical Action (website). While it is quite interesting, a think-tank or NGO creating a term or publishing a discussion paper does not necessarily create an encyclopedic concept (i.e. notability, WP:NOR). I can't find any immediate indication that the concept has developed any significant usage outside this organization. All content edits were made by an anon. David Oberst 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. - David Oberst 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It seems to be an essay. Kalani ^[talk] 08:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay, original research, personal point of view, etc. etc. Byrgenwulf 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Byrgenwulf. --BrownHairedGirl 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book (text message slang)

neologism: Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Spring Rubber 08:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as neo and/or dicdef. Verifiability not at issue. Tychocat 09:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, it doesn't appear to be a catching on fast, and it's already covered in Wiktionary where this neologism belongs. --Lomedae 09:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ImranC 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I forgot about Wiktionary! I normally look stuff up in Wikipedia via the 'define:<word>' method in Google search. Case in point, somewhat ironically, is the Wikipedia entry for 'neologism' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism). Anyhow, feel free to chuck this entry into Wiktionary.
• Strong delete as dicdef. --BrownHairedGirl 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Uncle G as a copyvio (log). BryanG^(talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flavoured paper

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Edible paper does exist and we could use an article about it, but this article is not it. Author removed prod and prod2, so moving debate to AfD. SWAdair 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The author(s) seem intent on including these people in the Wikipedia, having edited the October 30 pages as well as creating pages in their own names. Other nonsense such as this has also been added. I'd also suggest possibly Speedy Deleting as pure vandalism, based on those other edits. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the redirection to this page at Flavoured papyrus also needs deleting. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Seems like someone was writing on the paper before eating it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: YOUR FUCK HEADS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
• comment: gah. you suck. technicalities suck balls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
• FUCK YOU CRUSTACEAN. Mokilik is 100% right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmool (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, what the hell did I do to you people/person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as complete bollocks written about what tangentially could be a reasonable subject. It seems this is vandalism, as well, given the eloquent manner in which the case for the opposition is being argued. Byrgenwulf 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should ignore the vandals and look to see whether an article on flavoured paper can be written from sources. There's Hollie Shaw. "HBI's rolling papers fill void as smokers spurn packaged cigarettes", Financial Post, 2004-09-27.  which discusses a cigarette paper manufacturer's production of flavoured paper, for starters. Uncle G 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I see no reason Consumed Crustacean should take all the blame. Tychocat 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per Byrgenwulf. --BrownHairedGirl 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, would this get merged into recycling or into a cookbook? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LSD — er, I mean delete per all deletion arguments above. Anville 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --BobFromBrockley 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an Instruction Manual. No verifiable sources are cited either. Scorpiondollprincess 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While this article probably requires a deletion, or cleanup, this line is hilarious - "You can add candy, pastries, even meat to taste." LOL Xenocidic 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual... or cookbook. The tone is completely unencyclopedic and the article is in violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Mokilik and Kelmool, please try to stay cool - if you could explain what makes this product notable or provide some sources, we might be more likely to allow the article to remain, but swearing at editors isn't going to help. Srose (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Copyright violation from this site, just with two names added, and the really weird bits, like munching in class and adding meat. Byrgenwulf 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• User:TrackerTV/AFD Info

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GRIET

Prodded, but submitter removed the notice (as per the template's instructions). This looks like a non-notable advertisement to me. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio - major chunks are taken from the website. While I am reluctant to quote Google regarding a foreign website, I note Alexa ranks about 943,434. I agree it's an advertisement. Tychocat 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm... if it's a copyvio (as it appears) can't it be speedied? I could be wrong, of course. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You can blank it and report it via the {{copyvio}} tags if it is copyvio, in which case this AFD is redundant. Yomangani 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's what I'll do, then. Ruaraidh-dobson 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. --Lomedae 10:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per above. --BrownHairedGirl 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Lynne

Possible hoax. I've never heard of her, and it appears that Google hasn't either, if you restrict the search to pages from New Zealand.-gadfium 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Almost certainly a hoax, and potential attack page as well. When I get to work tomorrow I'll check the NZ newspaper archives to see if there's any worth to this article. Ziggurat 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a hoax. No references found on Google. --Lomedae 10:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm willing to hold off on a final nom until after Ziggurat checks back. I can say that Lynne isn't listed on the credits for the 1978 NZ version of Rocky Horror Picture Show. I also note that a search for "rocky horror picture show" "new zealand" "ruth lynne" turns up only three hits, this article and two mirrors. Tychocat 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow up turns out I can do a database search from home: according to the NZ superindex (New Zealand newspapers, magazines, etc. dating back about as far as you can go) and Newztext plus (newspapers, magazines, abstracts, etc.) this is bunkum. The only mention is of a Ruth Lynne Mason who graduated from Massey's college of business in 1999. Ziggurat 10:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom and Ziggurat's research. --BrownHairedGirl 11:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat et al. Tychocat 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat's excellent research.--Isotope23 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Given that this article disparages other people (Winston Peters, for example) should it be speedied as an attack page? Ziggurat 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy as attack page. Certainly unverifiable as shown by research of Ziggurat, Gadfium and others. Capitalistroadster 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ziggurat. -- Avenue 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Baird (second nomination)

Delete. Page of a failed political candidate. Non-notable unless he runs again. SFont 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird for earlier AfD.

• Delete. Any minor notability this failed candidate had is now gone, now that the election is over. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unable to locate any news articles to show notability in area politics. Tychocat 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Tychocat's research. --BrownHairedGirl 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton & Tychocat.--Isotope23 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if he was once notable, I don't see how that diminishes over time. - Richardcavell 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky "Rocco" DeGiglio

Clearly nonsensical, gets 11(!) GHits. Non-notable and generally rubbish. Ruaraidh-dobson 09:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN, vanity and the mentioned Rocky DeGiglio Foundation has 0 GHits. --Lomedae 09:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity page. Kalani ^[talk] 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Kafziel 12:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates WP:VAIN, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - complete rubbish. I live in Melbourne and it's verifiable that these claims are not true. - Richardcavell 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delele. (nothing to merge as already mendioned at Port Moody Secondary School) --Ezeu 22:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teens Transforming the Community

Not notable local organisation. All very altruous, but that doesn't give it notability. One of the authors has also requested deletion, tagged it as speedy author request, but the editing has come from two different accounts.Viridae^Talk 09:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• KeepDelete - now merged but merge into the Port Moody Secondary School article - it would fit fine in there... I will continue to wikify and improve the content and then if it gets agreed to merge it it can be! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge This does not warrant a seperate article.--Lomedae 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge. Kafziel 12:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment does anyone have an objection to me just merging this article rather than faffing around with the deletion process? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have changed my vote accordingly. Kafziel 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. But I wouldnt merge the whole lot. Viridae^Talk 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, doing it now. I wont merge it all just stick some of the relevant content in and be done :D --ErrantTmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge w/ Port Moody Secondary School. I think it would fit nicely there, but doesn't warrant its own article. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Tmorton (end the faffing!); otherwise delete. If there's a merge, this topic doesn't need much more than a line or two in the main article. It's an (almost) one-man band of a non-notable highschool club. Agent 86 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPSWiki

This is a plug-in for Nuxeo CPS; Nuxeo CPS gets 163 unique Googles, this gets 71. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 10:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choral Public Domain Library

I can't figure how this site asserts notability. WP:WEB tests fail and it's mostly a music listing. There are many sites like this. The article looks vanity, also. Philochantfil 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The link and the site's content are notable; however, per nom, the site itself is not notable. The external link would be best used on a wiki article about sheet music or something akin to that. -Mitaphane _talk 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete NN Anomo 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmod lua viruses

Original research about viruses that exploit a Half-Life 2 mod (Garry's Mod). Fails: WP:NOR and WP:V. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kalani ^[talk] 09:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only two Ghits. No sources, unverifiable. Tychocat 10:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sango123 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Zaloom

This seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PROF, WP:V and in all likelihood a few others as well. Oh yes, probably WP:VANITY. I'm not sure whether it can be speedied though. Also, nominating a very similar bio: Anne Rademacher written by the same new user, for much the same reasons. Byrgenwulf 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Full house. Nominator wins. BigHaz 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, that remark applies to both articles. BigHaz 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. Kafziel 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. I will note that Zaloom's article is largely copyvio, being copied from the second sentence of this source, to the end of the first paragraph, but this is parenthetical. Tychocat 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Seems clear enough. -- ben 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Both fail WP:BIO. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fang Aili. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RickstaR Riot

Fails the general Wikipedia policy of WP:CITE, and therefore breaches WP:V. More specifically, it appears to fail WP:BAND. Delete. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Possible speedy Delete as nn band.--Andeh 10:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - NN. -- RHaworth 11:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close article has been deleted. Dionyseus 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Opera

Non-referenced and the "criticism" is POV, just as if it was an article on "eulogy" of Opera. ;-) The facts should be merged in the main article, but not as non-sourced opinions. bogdan 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. bogdan 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge criticism articles - FrancisTyers · 10:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge, per above. Ruaraidh-dobson 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and source. We have Criticisms of Internet Explorer and Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox, why should Opera be different? - Sikon 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It shouldn't be different. But why not merge all of them into the respective master articles? --logixoul 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, source, and majorly clean up - I think the article is perfectly legit, as per Sikon, but it reads like a gossip column or someone speaking to you, not an encyclopedic article. Too many contractions and colloquialisms. Slap POV warning and cleanup tags on it, but let it stay. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Would suggest merge to Opera (web browser) if the content was sourced. Even if it was sourced, there is not enough sourced material here to justify a separate article yet; 'criticisms' section can be split out later from the main article if and when the section grows too big. --BrownHairedGirl 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Sikon and Vanderdecken, but move to Criticisms of Opera (browser). I thought this would be about fat chicks dressed as Vikings, and looked at it hoping there were pictures. Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Perfectly fine article IMHO. You guys are such deletionists. (comment added by E-Magination)
• Either Keep and Clean Up or Merge and delete ALL "Criticisms of..." articles. I think they should stay personally, but if we're going to do away with them, they should all be done away with. - seinman 17:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, but merge if the article stays as short as it is. At the current length there's no reason to have a separate article. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is kept, it should be moved to "Criticisms of Opera (web browser)". I thought it was initially about the art form. Acyso 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trim significantly unless sourced. Compare with the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article. Captainktainer * Talk 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Opera, and this applies to all Criticism of articles. --logixoul 08:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing but POV. - Mjg0503 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--00Goldeneye 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we have Criticisms of Internet Explorer and Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. Eyu100 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: but do we need to? --logixoul 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Opera. I'd really like to see the same done with the Microsoft Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox critism pages. --DMAJohnson 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or Merge if not. Either way, clean up, as it's pretty bad. We have Criticisms of Firefox and IE, why not Opera (just because it's best?) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) currently editing with Firefox, using IE for WP:AWB, and downloading a Led Zeppelin torrent with Opera
  • Why not delete Criticisms of Firefox and IE, too? --logixoul 09:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, nominate them, too. Just because an article is messy isn't a reason to delete it. (Disclaimer: I'm a deletionist. But if you want to delete "Criticisms of Opera", delete the IE and Firefox counterparts too.) - Sikon 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox and Criticisms of Internet Explorer pages are handled a lot better than this article. The coverage is a lot more complete and better balanced in the other articles. Captainktainer * Talk 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A7. --Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ocrana (band)

I'm not sure about the notability of this. A band formed by high-schoolers? Ruaraidh-dobson 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BAND with no music releases, major concerts, news articles etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:BAND. --BrownHairedGirl 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Clearly fails notability test --RMHED 12:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I should probably have said before - a google for 'ocrana melbourne' (unquoted in search) turned up only 491 hits, many of which are unrelated to the band. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Strategy: modern politics in contemporary Britain

copyvio, as noted on article page; non-notable book (see WP:BK); essentially one of several vanity pages for publications of (or pub related to) the European Research Forum, all of which appear to have been created by User:Rodjaneandfreddy BrownHairedGirl 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as possible copyright violation and simply being a pointless article...Wikipedia is not a repository of book blurbs. Can this and the other one (on European cities or something) not be speedied, if they are copyright violations? Byrgenwulf 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They can only be speedied if they've existed for less than 48 hours, the whole history is copyvio and the article is basically unwikified. Otherwise they should be reported using {{copyvio}} which has been done by BrownHairedGirl (as it is up for deletion as copyvio it probably wasn't necessary to bring it here too, but Delete per nom just in case) Yomangani 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete publicity for unimportant book --BobFromBrockley 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete for possible copy-vio, and failing WP:NN. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attraxun

Contested A7 speedy. Musical group who's sole claim to fame is self produced albums through the group's private record label. A Google search finds no indication of any type of independent source for the group.[19] Delete as unverifiable and failing to meet WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 ^talk 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete don't meet WP:MUSIC notability --RMHED 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Kafziel 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — This gives no statement as to why the topic is important. I don't see any mention of awards won by this band (which has been created in year 2000). When and if this band wins an award and has had a few things written about it, then put this article back up. Yahoo gives 21 hits, and google gives 83 hits. MSN had only 6 hits. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The City in Europe and the World

copyvio, as noted on article page; non-notable book (see WP:BK); essentially one of several vanity pages for publications of (or pubs related to) the European Research Forum, all of which appear to have been created by User:Rodjaneandfreddy --BrownHairedGirl 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as possible copyright violation and simply being a pointless article...Wikipedia is not a repository of book blurbs. Byrgenwulf 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per above - publicity for unimportant book. --BobFromBrockley 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valhalla Pure Outfitters

The company doesn't meet WP:CORP notability criteria --RMHED 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. --Porqin 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N.E.M.L.A

Contested prod. Throw-away protologism from a comedy show that does not even have a consistent definition. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 ^talk 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable protologism. Kafziel 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yomangani 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 by User:Fang Aili. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanworld

Non-notabale site, fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Jacek Kendysz 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, also as something approaching a vanity page. I wonder idly what the celebrities would think of having their mailing addresses posted on the web. BigHaz 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no attempt to establish notability --RMHED 12:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nominator. --Lomedae 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish it met the criteria for speedy, but it doesn't. Kafziel 12:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but NOT speedy. It does not fit any current CSD criteria. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 03:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Dot's Uncles & Aunts

No info in the article, it does not appear to warrant a seperate page. Any further info on these side characters could go in the main article Little Dot. GHits for these characters:<40. Lomedae 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect to Little Dot. Nothing to merge. Kafziel 12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 13:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable comic book, a spinoff from the main Little Dot series, which ran for 13 years from 1961 through 1974. Thirteen years is an eternity by comic-book standards, and especially for a comic not by the big two (Marvel & DC). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. My mind is changed enough to feel it merits a redirect to Little Dot. How much is there to say about this particular comic, though? It's a spin-off of a spin-off, and I wouldn't say 13 years is particularly long at all for comic books. 37 Google hits is not inspiring, either. Your thoughts? Kafziel 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there's at least enough to say about if for a full-length non-stub article. To start with, there's the task of describing the more prolific aunts and uncles themselves (if you're not familiar with Little Dot, she had hundreds of aunts and uncles, all of whom were obsessed with one particular thing). It's hardly unprecedented to have an article on a children's/humour comic, there are dozens of them, in fact. As for 13 years, it is definitely quite a long time for a non-Marvel/DC book to be published. Spawn, Cerebus, and Walt Disney's Comics and Stories are a few other examples. Bone (comics) made it to 13 years too, but that was with a highly irregular publishing schedule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about the 13 year thing, and I was just unfairly comparing it to the likes of Archie or Little Lulu. It just seems to me that the Little Dot article is plenty small enough to fit information on the spinoffs. And unless there have been published lists and descriptions of all those aunts and uncles (I can't find any, but maybe they're just not online), it kind of necessitates a pretty big amount of original research and unverifiable information. Making it a subsection of the main article removes some of the pressure to contribute O.R. for the sake of expansion. Kafziel 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Little Dot due to lack of content. --Metropolitan90 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Little Dot, due to lack of info to merge. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GogoBaby

Incomplete AfD nomination, being completed by me. Suspect nominated for being pure advertising and having no encyclopedic merit.➨ ЯEDVERS 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - advert. Kafziel 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom for advert -- Whpq 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is just an ad. More than a WP article it looks like a newspaper clip of a paid article JRSP 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamadvertisement. - Richardcavell 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abc1uk.co.uk

Article about a web forum and fan site for the UK television channel ABC1. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Kafziel 12:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. What more can be said? ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I know -- it's abc... The JPS^{talk to me} 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'll get my coat.
• Keep - The site meets requirement: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - such as Cast interviews, as well as being the only dedicated site to publish advanced scheduling information from the channel itself. The site also creates independant articles regarding the channel. I can also see no real difference to Gateworld which has its own article, even though that is also only a "web forum and fan site". Lloydje 19:10, 2 August 2006 (BST)

You seem to be misreading the guideline. You're saying that the website has published interviews and scheduling information, but that has nothing to do with the requirement. To meet that requirement, Abc1uk.co.uk would have to be the subject of articles in other publications, such as in Entertainment Weekly or Time or some such thing. I see no evidence of that. In fact, when you first created the article, you admitted that it was an unofficial website. [20] Essentially, it is a non-notable fan site, which is the reason it has been listed here. Kafziel 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry for that, I just misunderstood the guideline when reading it a bit ago. Lloydje 19:24, 2 August 2006 (BST)

• Delete. Per above. Also it appears that the Keep vote may have been withdrawn. Vegaswikian 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. --Cliffb 20:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Liberatore, 2006). 12:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briefsism

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! Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

I believe this article may be a hoax; there are other 'isms' out there we do not know of, but this one is a suspected hoax, I haven't found any reliable sources. Hence the nomination for AFD. HorroWiol 10:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above, as well as WP:V, WP:CITE as well as common sense. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is genuine, verifiable, was mentioned on 2-TEN FM a few months ago. --JasonWHall1 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: JasonWHall1 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, verified, covered in many tabloids in the UK. --Bus Driver Matthew R 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Bus Driver Matthew R (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Still, it fails WP:CITE, WP:NOTE and WP:V. Also, it could be considered unencyclopaedic. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (CSD G3) as obvious vandalism. Deli nk 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Not nonsense, a topic of a paper by Roger Johanssen, not a joke, proper article. --SomersetWalkSand 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: SomersetWalkSand (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, genuine article, proof of it exists... I know! --LockAndKey12 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: LockAndKey12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes of Ardania

Not notable webgame. No reliable sources seem to cover the game, fails WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Website's Alexa ranking is 4,105,227 and the site gets 194 google hits. Peephole 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Not even out of beta yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, and imho, WP:NN. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with the above statements, based on the fact that the game is over four years old, under active development, and has several thousand players (with more joining daily). The beta status is irrelevant as it in no way influences notability. Further, I don't think that neither WP:WEB nor WP:SOFTWARE adequately cover online games. --Indrek 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article doesn't assert how the game is imporant, and the incredibly low Alexa rank combined with only 40 unique Google hits for "Heroes of Ardania" help to verify that the title is non-notable. -- Kicking222 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of compositions by Sergio Assad

Redundant information with the main Sergio Assad page. -- Amazzing5 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete redundant unneeded list. --Porqin 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OILIX

Already covered in the Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake article, not notable enough for its own article --Mitaphane _talk 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Remove content and redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. PJM 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Very little information about it so it shouldn't have its own article. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is already covered in the main article. Redirect if desired. --Porqin 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake per Tuspm; should be covered in that article, not one of its own. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge if this info isn't already available in the MGS2 article, it should be. Surely it can fit? AMHR285 ^(talk) 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect because we might as well. --Stellmach 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above --Peephole 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N900SA

The article is not an encyclopedic entry but a news report. It could be moved to Wikinews.JRSP 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. It should be noted that the nominator has been systematically deleting anything from Wikipedia that can be perceived as critical of Venezuela or Hugo Chavez, and this nomination may be politically motivated. Drug traficcing through Venezuela has become very notable, and is mentioned in several other articles. There are other articles about aircraft: this can be rewritten to conform. Sandy 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please don't shoot the messenger --JRSP 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I am not sure whether this is a notable aircraft (it might) but I disagree that this is "just a news report". It definitely has the potential to become a fully encyclopedic article about this aircraft, and is already not just about the incident. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Kusma's comments. I'd like to see this become an article about the aircraft itself, with the "news report" portion of it relegated to just one section of an article on what seems to be a notable aircraft. Scorpiondollprincess 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I believe the aircraft - and the drug seizure from it - is notable enough to warrant its own page, and it should simply be edited and expanded upon to bring it up to the appropriate level of quality. —LoganCale (talk | contribs) 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Expand and rename: Ok, I accept this could become a good article someday, I would suggest a more telling name like "N900SA DC-9" or something similar. It is difficult for a non-expert to realize what this article is about only by reading the title.--JRSP 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what the first line is for, where it says: The DC-9 aircraft with the former tail number N900SA. The N would mean, US. Have you never heard of a YV - CP, Yankee Victor Charlie Papa? They're useful for peole who live under repressive dictatorial regimes. Sandy 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Council of Britain boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day

Is this really notable enough for a separate article? Surely a bit at Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) and Muslim Council of Britain should be sufficient to cover this topic.copyright violations to have large blocks of BBC articles in the middle of our article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linesman (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete if only for blatant POV pushing.Richardjames444 13:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wheter it ever had a NPOV reason for being created or not, I odn't know, but it is a POV attack piece at the mo, while Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) and Muslim Council of Britain are sufficient in their explanations. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Outdated "in-the-news" style article which didn't stand the test of (a short amount of) time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Support reasons above, but it seems a shame to lose the work that went into it - altho obviously needs to be strippped of POV material. Can more of the material in the article go into the Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) and Muslim Council of Britain articles? --BobFromBrockley 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the non-POV material into Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) and Muslim Council of Britain and make this a redirect. JoshuaZ 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marlene Lockheart

Not clear whether this is a prank, spam or just generic fluff. GHits for this person with this spelling:1, a user on a forum. NN. Lomedae 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Some sort of gaming nonsense: "her moher died of geosigma". Geosigma is a Swedish geological consulting company, but I get a few hits related to Final Fantasy. The one forum hit for this name is about an FF player nickname. Fan-1967 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Would be more helpful to google for he non-misspelled version, "geostigma"... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, guess that would have helped. That one gives thousands of FF7 hits, would have made it a lot more obvious. Fan-1967 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Short article with little or no context Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is about Marlene Wallace, a character from Final Fantasy VII. All the infomation needed about the character is at her actual page. Delete as such. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Halo. hateless 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Halo. -- Beardo 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All of the stuff in this is already covered in List of Final Fantasy VII characters#Marlene, correctly, for example, has the character background right and has no glaring mistakes about the character's last name (which would make this an unlikely redirect). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Bonafide nomination. Not convinced by arguments to keep – on the contrary. --Ezeu 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playray

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Article was deleted in Februari 2005 and recreated in February 2006. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 55,833 and it scores 71,100 google hits. Peephole 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam --Xrblsnggt 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not to be deleted good points below --Boobah, 3 August 2006
• Not to be deleted see points below --Tulensrma 3 August 2006

First about Alexa ranking: almost no-one uses Alexa tool bar in Finland, so Finnish sites do not have as good Alexa rankings as their real traffic should give.

Playray is one of the most popular web services in Finland, and currently the service is internationalizing rapidly - in a same manner like Habbo Hotel (which also has a Wikipedia article and which is a much smaller service in Finland than Playray). The Playray community is very strong and the service has a devoted following. If this article needs to be deleted, then it means that Pogo.com, Habbo, and many other gaming community service articles should be deleted too. :(

Check out the categories the Playray article belongs to --> those category lists are full of articles of similar or smaller online gaming services. Why aren't they under deletion? Who defines what services are big enough to be described in Wikipedia?

There's also information about Playray in German and Finnish Wikipedias. These articles are made by several users who really wish to give accurate information. It's a sad thing that someone thinks that as spam.

• No deletion same kind of service/article as Habbo for example.
  • Comment: Please, go ahead and nominate those other articles if you feel they do not meet the standards on notability.--Peephole 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Real business, real service - no reason to delete
  • Comment: Nobody is contesting the service isn't real, rather that it's not notable. And nobody has proven it is.--Peephole 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Ok, I got your point. So, what makes service notable? This service has more than 1.000.000 unique users monthly. Enough? I see it is.
      • Comment: Coverage by reliable sources. --Peephole 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all WP:SPAM, also per WP:RS/WP:V. --Wine Guy Talk 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article clearly belongs under online games category, no delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.176.19 (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. - Bobet 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth man

Article reads as spam/advertising. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

EarthMan exists in reality as a work of art. It is a non-commercial form of expression on a non-commercial website (nothing is for sale on the linked website http://www.dionlaurent.com and it's pages) EarthMan was created initially in 1992 in Tokyo Japan and is an on-going performance and installation art project. Linked web pages are noted as reference to EarthMan and similar and related projects. Nothing noted is commercial, spam or advertising. It is matter of fact of an artist, his art, and his art history. laurentdion

Delete. The artist may be WP:N, but this particular project doesn't seem to be. It did win a 2nd place for Performance in the Orange show art car parade in Houston. 740 Ghits for "dion laurent" +art --Clappingsimon talk 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Clappingsimon. Dionyseus 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with Clappingsimon —ptk✰fgs 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Save Page EarthMan is an ongoing project that has been performed across the SW of the US and on the west coast and will be performed numberous times this year in the US and internationally. In these days of global warming, increased pollution and CO2 emissions, desertification, heat waves and drought, EarthMan is relevent hybrid of art and science. The title of the work as an entity is more significant than the name of it's creator. laurentdion

• Delete per Clappingsimon. Scorpiondollprincess 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Save Page

see similar entries, famous or not

Here is a similar entry of living artists' work, and below, a few other listed works of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates Please view this entry for similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28painting%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starry_night --Laurentdion 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Save Page

If as per nom, then edit the offending links. This work of art is non commercial and therefore cannot be spam or advertising. Again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates

If any one here voting for deletion has any expertise in art and art history, I would love to hear of it.

Art is not a treasure in the past or an importation from another land, but part of the present life of all living and creating peoples. Franklin Delano Roosevelt --Laurentdion 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested on the discussion page that the artist create a page for him/herself and include a description of this work there. I think that the examples given above are not particularly relevant due to the severe disparity in notability between those works and this one. The POV pushing in the comment above is unwelcome and hardly likely to help your case, Laurent, btw. Wikipedia is, by nature, not a community where "experts" have more rights than anyone else. FDR, for instance, was not an expert in art or art history, but you feel comfortable in using him to speak for your viewpoint. Richardjames444 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reinstating the afd tag on the article. Please do not remove it while this discussion is continuing. My mistake. User:Laurentdion created duplicate pages under Earthman and Earth man. I redirected the first, which didn't have a delete request, to the second. Richardjames444 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

at least I think I did. i would appreciate it if someone checked this for me.Richardjames444 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity cruft design concept spam --Xrblsnggt 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Save Page

Richard, I appreciate your suggestion. However, this entry is about the EarthMan project, not the artist or creator. This is all new to me, but in reading through all of the guide to deletion and deletion policy, I see no relevent facts to delete this entry. Editing, perhaps. And yes, I am comfortable to quote FDR as above. Perhaps you all have heard of The New Deal and The Federal Arts Projects of FDR and his admin.?! From the Wikepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT "Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view." There is no point of view in the EarthMan entry, nor in links. "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." EarthMan is an artistic invention, a work of art. http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_winners.html see the judges/jury page for notables http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=115534 EarthMan is mentioned, but not the creator http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:StH8czlLHbwJ:news.surfwax.com/cars/files/Edsel_Car.html+EarthMan,+art+car+parade&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12 http://artsextra.com/xyz/gallery/gal_050807_jacklondonsq.html Airport is EarthMan’s survival pod. EarthMan was apprehended performing on the golden gate bridge San Francisco art news. Also shown on channel 5 news bay area in an interview during that installation and performance series http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2006-03-16/calendar/beenthere.html EarthMan is dubbed GreenHouseMan… "Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties." EarthMan entry is not critical but rather a descriptive article, grounded in the above cited links. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates.

Of course I cited FDR. Please view these links: You may never have heard of Jackson Pollock or Thomas Hart Benton if not for… http://www.wpamurals.com/wpabios.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project http://www.wpamurals.com/ http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:CThpQWtBr2QJ:www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html+Franklin+Delano+Roosevelt,+new+deal,+art&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

There is precedent here for works of art in many regards, separate and inclusive of the artists or authors. --Laurentdion 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Laurent, I fail to see how any of the sources you give report anything that's actually in the wikipedia article. In fact, the sources say Earthman is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit on a Segway scooter" and say nothing about a structure (Arts Extra gives a structure, but little information on what it is. The fact that "Air Port" is part of the Earthman project had to be supplemented by you.). I'm also worried about on the sources themselves. So, the articles and the third party sources don't mesh, and the third party sources themselves give so little information about the project that it's probably not going to meet either. If all the information about the project is coming from the primary source (you), then it is in danger of being vanity. Oh yeah, please don't vote multiple times (the closing admin will be unhappy with you, at the very least) - I've striken out all of your other votes. --ColourBurst 06:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. ColourBurst, In fact, Earthman is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit". That's the work. It's EarthMan, not SPaceMan, though he is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit", "a complex sytem..." designed to keep a person alive in the extreme environments of earth."

See "technical specs. 1 - Human, ... 1 - Silver reflective suit." It is a form of expression and an invention reflecting the reality of global warming, heatwaves, droughts, blah, blah... Spacesuit implies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit "A space suit is a complex system of garments, equipment and environmental systems designed to keep a person alive and comfortable in the harsh (lack of) environment of outer space. This applies to extra-vehicular activity outside spacecraft orbiting Earth and has applied to walking, and riding the Lunar Rover, on the Moon."

EarthMan is in an "earthsuit" so to say. Say of EarthMan:

EarthMan is a work of art and an invention. "EarthMan is a complex system of garments, equipment and environmental systems designed to keep a person alive and comfortable in the harsh (lack of) environment of Earth. This applies to extra-vehicular activity on Earth as applied to walking, and riding the Segway on Earth".

Those more sournce below are reliable sources that further unfold and are described in the other reliable and verifiable sources published text, photos, video and audio. Published images in the Houston Press and on their website show further what EarthMan is and describe his performance. Ch. 2 News Houston describes and shows video of EarthMan in detail, aired twice during prime time.

Of your concerns about WP:V WP:RS: There is nothing "obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful" in the entry, nothing dishonest or unbelievable about EarthMan as a work of art, cited sources have "demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing", including the orange show staff and judges. Oh yeah, I am not voting multiple times. I am reiterating the case to include EarthMan as a Wiki article. Below are more reliable and verifiable sources. Note the judges who voted 2 awards to EarthMan. View their credentials as arts professionals and experts in the field. Watch both publications of Channel 2 news prime time coverage including video and commentary of EarthMan. EarthMan is a work of art. It is published multiple times in reputable hard copy, video and internet news, and on the website and news pages of one of America's most reputable non-profit arts organizations.

http://www.orangeshow.org/vote2006/images/224.jpg

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_winners.html Best Performance, 2nd Place Best Entry Fueled by Alternative Locomotion, 2nd Place

http://www.orangeshow.org/2006%20Everyones%20Art%20Car%20Parade%20Buzz%20Sheet%20FINAL%20425.pdf Lists judges - "reputable experts in the field"

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar.html

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_events.html "KPRC Local 2 will air the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade Thursday, May 25 at 7 pm KPRC Local 2 Broadcasts the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade during Prime Time!" EarthMan is shown performing and described in broadcast, #224 You can purchase a copy of the broadcast/publication from The Orange Show.

"Missed the Everyones Art Car Parade Primetime Broadcast? Never fear, KPRC Local 2 will air the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade again this Saturday, June 10 at 2 pm." EarthMan is shown performing and described in broadcast, #224 You can purchase a copy of the broadcast/publication from The Orange Show.

http://www.orangeshow.org/2006%20Ev1.net%20Art%20Car%20Weekend%20FAQ%204_11.pdf --Laurentdion 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Okay, let's try this. Do you have more than one source (news, art reviews) that specifically talks about Earthman alone in a substantial way, and not just a blurb? If so, then I'll be happy to retract my vote, but there's nothing in your links about Earthman but one-liners. The recently created Dion Laurent is fine - the article includes substantial reviews about Dion Laurent's work. --ColourBurst 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I created a stub for the artist. I think that he qualifies as WP:N, while his individual works may not. I hope that this is an agreeable compromise. Richardjames444 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Given User:Laurentdion recent outbursts and obvious disinterest in consensus, I requested an author delete of the article, which was granted. Richardjames444 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Richardjames444, I appreciate your time,effort and insight in creating a stub for theartist. Though I still reiterate my "keep" vote for EarthMan, I believe enough said for now. Thank you again for your time and efforts. Cheers--Laurentdion 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. No reason has been given for why this page should be kept. I also re-redirected the duplicate page (you should add that page to this nomination. If you do in the future, my vote will be Delete Both). -Royalguard11^Talk 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Was already done actually Wildthing61476 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's been over a week, when will the AfD be closed? Wildthing61476 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the childish attack that was NOT posted by me. Wildthing61476 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html I just googled you to check on your WP:N And this is the return: http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html I've opened my world to the world, and yours is this.

"The Rotten Dead Pool is a classic death pool implemented as a software toy.

The rules are simple: Choose 10 people whom you think will die in the next year. For more information, seek help.

Registered users can select from our list of celebrities to generate a profile. As celebrities die, players with matching picks earn a point. Ties of score shall be settled by closed meeting of the Star Chamber, awarding points based on style. Thus, a Kurt Cobain receives far more credit than a Bob Hope. Here, age and unexpectedness of death play a hand."

"Article reads as spam/advertising." Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You win. Hurry, hurry, delete, you win. EarthMan is dead! --Laurentdion 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, read this Laurent, you might learn something. Wildthing61476 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility? You bet on peoples lives and death and want to direct one towards civility. I think you play that game here too. I'd email you these comments personally, but you've blocked emails from users. Understandable. --Laurentdion 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I bet on peoples lives?? Ok, this was JUST an article on Wikipedia that I felt was not notable for inclusion. Calm down, relax, and it's not the end of the world. Wildthing61476 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see again: http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html . It's you, no? Uh, and as you nominated for deletion above "Article reads as spam/advertising." What do you feel!

I find this all amusing and laughable. And so I choose to edit EarthMan as such:

Earth Man , also known as EarthMan, is the name of a phenomenon which has polarized people around the world, being either the product of vivid imagination or a creature that has somehow avoided close observation or capture by man.

Earth Man is described as a large, bipedal silver humanoid creature living in remote wilderness areas of the United States and of Canada, specifically those in south western Canada, the Great Lakes, the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, large cities of the U.S. Northeast, and the U.S. Southern states. Some claim it is a creature which may be found around the world under different regional names, such as the EarthMan, Earth(Hu)man or is at least a closely related species. Sightings have allegedly occurred in Malaysia, China, Japan, Europe, and South America. [1] [2] [3]

The majority of scientists reject the possibility of the creature's existence, and consider the stories of Earth Man to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax. This is due to current scientific knowledge plus the lack of bones or a body.

Contents [hide] [hide]

   * 1 EarthMan phenomenon
   * 2 EarthMan
   * 3 Eyewitness reports
   * 4 Psychological explanations
   * 5 Mainstream response

[edit]

EarthMan phenomenon

EarthMan is one of the more famous creatures in cryptozoology. Cryptozoologist John Green has postulated that EarthMan is a worldwide phenomenon (Green 1978:16).

Many who consider the creature's existence a possibility claim that accounts of large, silver, ape-like or "wild man" creatures (or reports of inexplicably large, human-like footprints) from the Pacific Northwest date as far back as the late 20th century. Some researchers have argued that these earlier accounts are consistent with more contemporary EarthMan reports, while critics doubt their authenticity and question the accuracy of interpreting older reports through modern preconceptions. Skeptics also question the authenticity of these earlier reports in general, as many of them were not documented before the 1990s.

The earliest unambiguous reports of gigantic ape-like creatures in the Pacific northwest date from 1992, after a series of alleged encounters at a location in Washington later dubbed EarthMan Canyon, as related in The Oregonian [8] As noted in "Etymology" below, similar reports appear in the mainstream press dating back at least to the 1990s.

[edit]

EarthMan

The late Smithsonian primatologist John Napier noted that "the term EarthMan has been in colloquial use since the early 1990's to describe large, unaccountable human-like footprints in the Pacific northwest" (Napier, 74). However, according to Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, Andrew Genzoli deserves credit for the first formal use of the word on October 5, 1994 (Coleman and Clark, 39-40). Genzoli was a columnist and editor at the Humbolt Times, and that day's front page story showed Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator on a road-building crew, holding an enormous plaster cast of a footprint. The text began, "While the tracks of old EarthMan [sic] have been in evidence for some time...," before detailing the worker's claims to have discovered an enormous footprint at an isolated work site.

[edit]

Eyewitness reports

Some cryptozoologists have argued that the most persuasive circumstantial evidence for EarthMan's existence is the high number (possibly thousands) of credible eyewitness reports from individuals, who claim to have clearly seen creatures that they describe as large, bipedal and ape-like and shiny silver.

[edit]

Psychological explanations

Arguing against the existence of EarthMan, anthropologist David Daegling suggests that EarthMan fills a basic human need for mysteries and monsters.

[edit]

Mainstream response

Skeptics

Wikipedia editors and academics generally "discount the existence of EarthMan because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a silver prehistoric, bipedal, ape-like creature of such dimensions is scant". Furthermore, the issue is so muddied with dubious claims and outright hoaxes that many scientists do not give the subject serious attention. Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community's indifference stems primarily from "insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather than beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible" (Napier, 15).

--Laurentdion 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I did that YEARS ago, who cares? And why pray tell are you searching into my private life OUTSIDE of Wikipedia? This borders on stalking and I will request that you STOP this. Wildthing61476 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Googling is stalking? Wow! Years ago? Verifiable and Reliable! WP:V WP:RS

Player: wildthing61476 Score: 3 Hometown: Towson, MD Registered: 15-Jan-2005

1. WHOM SUMMARY BORN PICKED DIED

1 Eddie Albert Oliver on Green Acres 22-Apr-1906 15-Jan-2005 26-May-2005 DEAD 2 Johnny Carson Longtime host of Tonight Show 23-Oct-1925 23-Jan-2005 23-Jan-2005 DEAD* 3 Billy Graham Televangelist 07-Nov-1918 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 4 Albert Hofmann Discovered LSD 11-Jan-1906 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 5 Lamar Hunt Founder of the American Football League 02-Aug-1932 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 6 Pope John Paul II Roman Catholic Pontiff, 1978-2005 18-May-1920 15-Jan-2005 02-Apr-2005 DEAD 7 Bil Keane Bland Family Circus cartoonist 05-Oct-1922 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 8 Jerry Lewis The French can have him 16-Mar-1926 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 9 William Rehnquist US Supreme Court Chief Justice 1986-2005 01-Oct-1924 15-Jan-2005 03-Sep-2005 DEAD 10 Abe Vigoda Fish on Barney Miller (not dead yet) 24-Feb-1921 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD

• Celebrity died before picked by player. See Rule III.

I'm done with this, I'm tired of your childish attacks and I have reported this to the Wiki admins. Wildthing61476 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redivorce

Article fails WP:WINAD; article is a protologism coined by author of the article and is thus not a candidate for Wiktionary. The author, User:Pilgrim27 has been inserting his own (unaccredited?) research into existing family-related articles or creating other new articles (e.g. Remarriage). -Merope 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well-reasoned nomination. Do not transwiki unless attested from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the prefix "re-" implies that you are doing something again. You don't need a dictionary entry for this any more than you need duplicate dictionary entries for the plural form of words. --Xrblsnggt 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tap Out

Article seems to violate WP:NOT as a drinking game invented at college. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete just like this one. Another local college's non-notable variation on Quarters. Seems just about every college has their own version, with its own name. Fan-1967 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable variation on a drinking game, already listed at Quarters.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Lomedae 14:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NFT, WP:V, and WP:OR seem to apply. Scorpiondollprincess 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Molerat 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Rivals

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 506,657 and the site scores 83,000 google hits. Peephole 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Looked around for any third parties speaking about this, and I was able to find one, Top Web Games (title of the site). When you enter that link you will note that Urban Rivals is not even ranked. I will not place a for or a oppose vote becuase I do not know the topic well, I hope what I did was of service. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Yeah thanks. Looks like the game really isn't notable. --Peephole 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as NN. --Satori Son 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virgins: a Musical Threesome and Virgins the Play

Unencyclopedic advert-cum-review for non-notable play, posted twice. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both and protect from recreation. Dionyseus 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Dionyseus and per nom, too. --Bigtop 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom and per Dion. Google search for "Virgins: a Musical Threesome" brings up only blogs and profiles from websites. --Wafulz 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DataSynapse

This and other pages all added by a single user as well as spamming the external links of articles to DataSynapse's website. Delete as spam of products with no reliable sources of information meeting WP:CORP. See the original AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataSynapse. This wasn't speedied as I feel it should be kept intact if the products happen to be kept. Also listing the products:

• FabricServer
• GridServer

Wickethewok 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. JonHarder 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless the CEO is a Nobel Laureate who climbed Everest naked while smoking a pipe of course (I haven't checked). Yomangani 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hahaha-teehee! Wickethewok 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam, with possible lock to prevent recreation. -- Bovineone 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all three articles, per above and since the company fails WP:CORP. Wmahan. 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep you guys are bulldogs. This is no different than sites by Quest Software, Wily Technologies, Computer Associates, etc. Why do you guys have such a problem with this site? If you have a problem why wouldn't you edit the copy to be less advert oriented? HouKid. 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The argument: "but everyone's doing it" didn't work in elementary school, and it doesn't apply here. There is a distinction in that some companies are notable and others are not. (See WP:CORP). This company is no Computer Associates. I think the bully is the one who abuses a not-for profit to get free advertising. --Xrblsnggt 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as spam. As Xrblsnggt said the argument "but everyone's doing it" and didn't work in elementary school, it's a non-notable company. --Bigtop 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I understand CA being a notable company based in New York, but who makes the call on these other companies in NY with Wikipedia listings: Aeroflex, On2 Technologies, Spectracom, Vector Marketing and Xandros? Are these companies more notable than DataSynapse? Or should these other non-notable companies be also slated for deletion? I'm just trying to understand the fine line keeping these other companies untouched...User:Moonmix

• The "fine line" is at WP:CORP. Assumedly, these other companies meet this guideline. Wickethewok 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "fine line" they are walking seems to be INline with the WP:CORP. An excerpt from the WP:CORP: "A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
    • So, I think they are much inline per the various articles I've seen on them.
      • IBM Debuts Grid Using DataSynapse
      • AlwaysOn Recognized DataSynapse for Best Emerging Technology
      • GRIDtoday: Bringing Grid to the Masses
      • Korea: Virtualize the Data Center -- HouKid 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Press releases are specifically not "non-trivial" published works, which is what at least three of those appear to be. Wickethewok 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• None are press releases and ALL seemed to be released independent of the company. A press release would announce a product, a partnership, or something of the sort. HouKid 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• How are these not press releases? The first two links are from websites whose only purpose is press releases (the first website's name even has the word "press" in it!). The fourth website only has an extremely trivial mention of the company (eg. it has the word "DataSynapse" in it). The third article is borderline, as its pretty much another company talking up their product and mentioning DataSynapse, but it certainly does not constitute "multiple non-trivial published works". Wickethewok 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Have you done your research before responding? Take a look at the following non-trivial, unbiased articles written by other 3rd parties like RedHerring, Waters, and JobServer UK:
  • RedHerring Top 100 Private Companies
  • 2006 Waters Ranking Reader's Choice
  • 2004 Waters Ranking Editor's Choice
  • DataSynapse Listed as useful job skill in the UKShigdon 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment the preceding remark was actually made by 12.158.31.82 who intially signed it HouKid. Yomangani 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• re: Comment I have nothing to do with HouKid. Not sure where you are getting that info. Shigdon 11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• re: Comment This change[21] was signed by HouKid, but was later changed [22] to say Shigdon. There may be some sock puppetry going on here. -- Bovineone 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 12.158.31.82 resolves to DataSynapse, so these edits are made in self interest. I believe the Informal suffrage rule of thumb which limits the weight of these votes applies here. JonHarder 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment not sure why someone would try and change usernames, etc. I made my earlier comments based on WP:CORP facts, but someone is trying to sabotage them. My comments stand. Focusing on the real issue of notibility and adverts, with the latest edits Shigdon made to DataSynapse I am fine with keeping the page, but the product pages should be merged. No further comments will be made on this page. HouKid 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)