Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikeo
I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable (WP:WEB), website it discusses doesn't even look like it's running yet,
and not in English.Neil916 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Since when was being in English a criteria for notability?--ThreeAnswers 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Has no claim to notability. Picaroon9288 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. S0uj1r0 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per others before me. Anomo 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Roy A.A. 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battling High School
No google hits, unsourced, can't find any references whatsoever. This has the feel of a hoax or a fictionalization of the creator's life problems. I'm listing it here to see if we can reach consensus about its reality. -- dcclark (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - number of relevant Google hits = 0. Probable reality quotient = 0 --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if you let any high schools be deleted, as been explained before on other pages, then they will start deleting all high schools. There is an organized group on Wikipedia that works to delete high schools. You cannot let them win. Capit 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Possible misunderstanding here. This is not a real high school. Even the article does not claim that; it claims to be about a series on the Disney Channel, but there's no evidence to support that contention (It's not mentioned in that context by either Google or the Disney Channel). Perhaps you would reconsider your vote under the circumstances? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Someone has blanked the AFD notice. east.718 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)- Bicycle as per usual.--Nicodemus75 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, possible WP:BALLS. --Kinu t/c 19:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. IMDB shows no trace of the existence of the project, either for the program title or the alleged cast members. I daresay the article is a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It wouldn't even stand up to quality standards on most parody sites. Ericj 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per CSD G3 Google search proves that this is a hoax, so I am willing to bet that this is obvious enough to count as vandalism. Jesse Viviano 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Viviano. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of shopping malls in Arizona
This is a bare list with no explanatory text. While all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Arizona also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per precedent set by North Carolina case. Fabricationary 01:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - there is a reason for categories, not indiscriminate lists. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 05:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Use the category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Individual malls should probably be considered for deletion as well. Artw 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete category serves the same purpose. Ericj 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of shopping malls in Connecticut
This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Connecticut also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which included this one. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant, and because the similar list noted above deleted. Fabricationary 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - there is a reason for categories, not indiscriminate lists. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Because of categories. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Use the category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete category serves the same purpose. Ericj 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of shopping malls in Indiana
This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Indiana also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 06:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Use the category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hands Off Venezuela
- Delete -- the article is 100% original research, with no citation to WP:V sources. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, among others.
Morton DevonshireYo - KEEP - I have been a member of the Hands Off Venezuela since it’s inception in 2002, and attend the weekly London meetings regularly. The article is thorough and accurate. The broad-based campaign has been very effective in it’s aims, providing accurate information regarding the social movements in Venezuela, and has been successful in building solidarity here in Britain through trade unions, universities and left wing organisations.--Mary1917 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP - The article should be kept. It was useful for me and have since found out about the good work they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.195.195.11 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:OR and WP:NOT Aeon Insane Ward 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom WP:V, well lack of sources all together, WP:OR --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per all of the above! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- no evidence of notability. Delete per nom and others. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & cleanup This organisation is real. It has several thousand members in the UK, including several members of parliament, including John McDonnell, MP, has been mentioned in parliament (EDM 487) and has been recognised by the President of Venezuela [1]. It is real and notable. However, the page does need to be better written and better wikified. I will try to find some time to do this soon. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:NPOV and is original research. Thε Halo Θ 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV perhaps, but that is cured by improving the article, not deleting it. It is not Original Research, however. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Early Day Motion cited by Seabhcan at least validates the existence of the organisation. I'd like to see more verified third-party sources of information about the group, but I think it's worth keeping it around on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Weakkeep pending cleanup. Pretty much all WP:OR and most WP:NPOV issues are related to Venezuela itself as opposed to the group itself, and can just be removed from the article. If verified third-party sources can corroborate the organization's claims (three and a half years of activity, notable members and leaders, supporters in 30 countries), it would easily pass WP:ORG. It needs to be cleaned up (and SDS has volunteered!), but a decent article should be possible. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I've deleted most of the OR and NPOV stuff, and added an {unreliable} tag. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cfred asked for third party sources. Here are some: (GuardianUK) Indepenent) (paysite); London Mayor Ken Livingstone supports HOV (Vcrisis - anti-chavez site) (VenezuelaAnalysis) .
- Some of the links David Schaich asked for: International membership: (US) (Australia) (Canada)
- Other stuff: [www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez (Cafepress)] (flickr) (PoliticalAffairs.Net) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Seabhcan. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a significant pressure group in the UK, and recent edits to the article have made it NPOV. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep after edits by David Schaich, this now meets WP:ORG guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep article was in fact full of POV, but the group is notable.--Jersey Devil 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Ive seen it on a t-shirt --Musaabdulrashid 12:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've now largly rewritten it. Hopefully all POV problems are gone. It still needs a critism section - but first I need to find sources. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dark Sun (nightclub)
Not notable at all. Cabled Substitution 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "it is notable because of its unusual decoration"? Gonna have to do better than that. NawlinWiki 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - A Google search turned up only a few hundred hits for '"dark sun" nightclub Greece,' and judging from the first few pages, the only relevant ones are copies of the Wikipedia article. Fabricationary 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ismusee 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, even though I got a good laugh about its assertion of notability :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not established, WP:NOT indiscriminate guide to nightlife. --Kinu t/c 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --S0uj1r0 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Doc Tropics and nom. Neil916 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elonka Dunin
Elonka Dunin is a Wikipedian who has gotten a friend to write an article about her and then edited it extensively. Working as a game developer does not make her notable, being mentioned in a few magazines does not make her notable. Being an amateur cryptographer (or amateur anything for that matter) does not make her notable. Working for a company that won an award for its product does not make her notable. Being thanked in a book does not make her notable. This is simply a case of someone abusing Wikipedia to gain publicity for themselves. There is way too much of that going on these days. Also note that a previous VfD was never closed. Danny 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Earlier AFD is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin
Delete - Barely on the edge of WP:NN but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of WP:AUTO violations. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)- Not sure why the first AfD wasn't closed... to my eye, it looks like a no consensus close, the arguments advanced are not clearly one way or the other. I looked long and hard at this article. I don't like to see vanity articles here. But I'm not convinced this article isn't about a notable person. The number of different publications cited, the published authorhood, the number of hits, the tie to Kryptos all seem to confer some notability. None is enough in my view all by itself, but together they seem to add up to just barely notable enough. Keep (with regret because I don't like to go against Danny, he's pretty sage). ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete page is back to its original state so my vote reverts also.
Delete dreadful vanity great-great-great-grandmother [was] Polish playwright, voice talent [on] etc. NeutralDlyons493 Talk 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - Strong keep (as subject). There seems to be some possibility that this is a bad faith nomination on the part of Danny, because I disagreed with him earlier today in a Deletion review on the Musa Cooper article [2]. As for the accusation that I'm just using my Wikipedia article as self-promotion, trust me, my Wikipedia article ain't it. ;) When I need to get the word out, I use my elonka.com website. To be honest, as much as I love editing Wikipedia (I think I'm at around 6,500 edits at this point [3]), my own Wikipedia bio article is something that I tend to perceive as being drastically out of date, but I try to respect WP:AUTO and keep my fingers out of it except for very simple factual updates. As for "proving" notability, let's see: Elonka Dunin is a published author, notable game developer (some of her work is even cited as references elsewhere on Wikipedia)[4], and she's a frequently-cited consultant on the CIA's Kryptos sculpture. Typing "Kryptos" into Google shows that her site has even higher placement than that of the CIA or Wired.[5]. The elonka.com website has over 2 million page views, and the name "Elonka Dunin" is cited often in the news. Just this year alone, it's mostly related to stories about Kryptos, and a Da Vinci Code-related story, (see: Smithy Code)[6]. Recent media appearances that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia bio (gee, I must have been falling down on the job in terms of using my Wikipedia bio for self-promotion): Washington Post [7], MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann [8], NPR's All Things Considered [9], Wired News[10] (this story was also the #1-ranked headline on AOL). Want more? Check the place I do use for self-promotion, my press page. --Elonka 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Some of that notability applies to the website though, not to you, no? perhaps elonka.com is what needs the article? That may be hairsplitting though, I dunno. Perhaps both do. Somehow, though, I just don't see Danny as doing a WP:POINT on anyone, that may not be a good place to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, not bad faith at all. This simply made me aware of the fact that there was an article about you. Whether it is in that article, your user page, or your talk page, you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that is simply unacceptable. I sepnd many long hours every day on the phone at the Wikimedia office, dealing with people who insist that we include articles about them because they are "notable." I get it from wannabe actors, pizza parlors, inventors, bloggers, you name it. The same efforts to prove notability, the same complaints, the same personal attacks (and I see that comment as a personal attack). Sorry, but there are guidelines. Those guidelines may have been bent out of shape by process over the past year or so, but there are guidelines nonetheless. WP:AUTO is a guideline that was violated by the incredible amount of vapid information posted to this article, and by the fact that in the talk page Elonka goes on an on about where to find even more information about her. For everyone reading this I ask: Will we have an article for every person involved in the creation of video games--they are massive productions? Will we have every person involved in the creation of a film? Just look at the roller for any film to understand what this will entail. Where are the limits where we say "No, this is not worthy of inclusion. This is barely verifiable." Wikipedia is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online must not be turned into a means of boosting someone's own website or ego. This is nothing more than spamming. Stating "Strong Keep" about one's self is nothing more than spamming either, and very tasteless spamming at that. oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions. Danny 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I suppose Jimbo should stop commenting on Talk:Jimmy Wales to correct his information, right? -- nae'blis (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's very harsh, Danny. You can argue for the deletion of the article without attacking the subject of it. Haukur 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, not bad faith at all. This simply made me aware of the fact that there was an article about you. Whether it is in that article, your user page, or your talk page, you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that is simply unacceptable. I sepnd many long hours every day on the phone at the Wikimedia office, dealing with people who insist that we include articles about them because they are "notable." I get it from wannabe actors, pizza parlors, inventors, bloggers, you name it. The same efforts to prove notability, the same complaints, the same personal attacks (and I see that comment as a personal attack). Sorry, but there are guidelines. Those guidelines may have been bent out of shape by process over the past year or so, but there are guidelines nonetheless. WP:AUTO is a guideline that was violated by the incredible amount of vapid information posted to this article, and by the fact that in the talk page Elonka goes on an on about where to find even more information about her. For everyone reading this I ask: Will we have an article for every person involved in the creation of video games--they are massive productions? Will we have every person involved in the creation of a film? Just look at the roller for any film to understand what this will entail. Where are the limits where we say "No, this is not worthy of inclusion. This is barely verifiable." Wikipedia is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online must not be turned into a means of boosting someone's own website or ego. This is nothing more than spamming. Stating "Strong Keep" about one's self is nothing more than spamming either, and very tasteless spamming at that. oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions. Danny 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Some of that notability applies to the website though, not to you, no? perhaps elonka.com is what needs the article? That may be hairsplitting though, I dunno. Perhaps both do. Somehow, though, I just don't see Danny as doing a WP:POINT on anyone, that may not be a good place to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to be reasonably notable abakharev 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Lar. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as borderline notable. I mean, I know who she is, and she's fairly well known among other game industry insiders too, so she's probably at least as notable as many authors or musicians that have WP articles. That said, article would benefit from a stronger case for notability. --Alan Au 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep She seems to meet WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - she wrote a fairly successful book, and has a reputation among cryptographers. The article may not emphasise this enough, because it's modeled after the other biography pages on wikipedia which tend to linger on a person's childhood and connections, rather than their accomplishments and notability. I didn't know I was disqualified from writing about her because I've seen her face to face like twice at industry networking functions. Subversified 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep heh, I actually heard that piece on NPR's All Things Considered the other day coming home from work. So yes, I would say that she is reasonably notable for her work on Kryptos. Other sources on it are in fact reliable sources and as such I'm voting keep.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (pared down at 05:02, 23 July 2006)
- Delete Assertions of notability insufficient for own article. Merge some detail about her work and her website on Kryptos into the Kryptos article - not enough on their own for their own article though. Otherwise, I am so far unconvinced about her other claims to notability such as the game career. Also, some vanity problems here Bwithh 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh. I am likewise unconvinced. AdamBiswanger1 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. If kept, the unverifiable cruft and vanity needs to be removed. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough for me. Add verification and cleanup. SynergeticMaggot 06:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, but desperately needs paring of non-notable bio material. Borderline vanicruft. Reads like it has to make a case for its own existence rather than being a useful bio sketch. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- KeepWrote a successful book, and a reputation among cryptographers and there's enough refrences from such as CNN to establish her notability. Englishrose 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as meeting WP:BIO for multiple non-trivial articles by uninvolved persons; published a reasonably successful book; and, appears to have gained general notoriety for her work on Kryptos. Google shows 27,000 hits, some book listings and forum discussions, but many interviews beyond what's shown in article. I can't say as I see any violations of WP:AUTO, since the material generally seems NPOV, and verifiable. I do agree with Danny regarding the way the article is written, it places all the non-notable stuff at the top. Tychocat 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Many mentions in passing is not the same thing as cultural capital. Some details can merge to the products and endeavors that are notable, but the article is lavish, given the amount of notability the subject has. Geogre 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Sorry, but I don't think that she is notable enough to have her own page. Thε Halo Θ 12:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not super notable, but seems to meet a minimum stndard and Wikipedia isn't paper, after all. Ace of Sevens 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*Keep now that the article has been totally revamped, my previous concerns have been abated. I think it should be watched for WP:AUTO violations, I assume most of them are now gone. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Exceeds notability litmus tests without much effort, IMHO. -Quartermaster 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not quite notable enough. Blizzard of One 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable enough. 27100 hits on Google. Manojb 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep please she is notable enough and passes bio guideline Yuckfoo 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep - the book sells it for me. // Gargaj 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Czar Yah 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to pass bio guidelines. I agree that WP:AUTO violations should be watched for, but I don't see any here as of now. --Myles Long 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - active Wikipedians should have to meet a somewhat higher hurdle to avoid the appearance of preferentialism... I think this type of thing lends ammunition towards those would attack Wikipedia based on perceived bias. No vote on this one, though - too far out of my area. bd2412 T 19:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - passes the Google test, mentioned or cited multiple times in print media. Asking for more is to apply a notability test that I believe is above and beyond what I've seen proposed or applied elsewhere on the Wikipedia. --Zippy 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Being an amateur cryptographer doesn't get u a wikipedia article. But writing a book, however unknown it is, does give my vote to keep the article. I would say, delete most of the parts of the game developer bit.--Ageo020 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That seems consistent with the general feeling on AfD so I'll do that now. Dlyons493 Talk 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re:Comment Don't understand the "delete the game developer" stuff. Can anyone clarify? Why? -Quartermaster 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That seems consistent with the general feeling on AfD so I'll do that now. Dlyons493 Talk 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty notable. Tons of less notable people on wiki, why target this article for deletion? --rewtguy 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject is notable within the realm of both cryptography and game development, as evidenced by her works and broad media coverage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy —Hanuman Das 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- speedy keep smashes requirements of WP:V ... and WP:BIO ... this is a speedy keep. Danny... regardless of your intentions this does come off as a revenge listing. ALKIVAR™
02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep reasonably notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Alkivar. Not only does this read like a revenge listing, but using the word "abusing" in the nom reads like an outright attack on a fellow Wikipedian. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems reasnoble as a bio. Daviegold 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with most of keep opinions above. Subject plently notable enough to have an article. Exactly what should be included in the article and who can edit it etc. shouldn't be decided by afd. Petros471 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (= original version)
Comment the page has been reverted to its original state - voters may wish to reconsider whether what they voted for corresponds to the current state of the article. Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm getting confused with all the different versions. Are we now determining WHICH version is notable enough? Can't we work on the broader question of whether Elonka Dunin is notable enough to warrant an entry about her, and THEN wrestle with the specifics of format and content as one normally does with any Wikipedia entry? I'm getting the two concepts of voting for deletion, and editing an article mixed up. FWIW I think editing is needed, but we may not all agree herein where, what, who, and how. -Quartermaster 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment while I agree with that in principle, I'm confident that the page will revert to its original cruft the minute editors eyes move on. I was hoping we could agree on a sort of reference version to keep that in check. But the water is now so muddy, I don't think a reasonable version is achievable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm getting confused with all the different versions. Are we now determining WHICH version is notable enough? Can't we work on the broader question of whether Elonka Dunin is notable enough to warrant an entry about her, and THEN wrestle with the specifics of format and content as one normally does with any Wikipedia entry? I'm getting the two concepts of voting for deletion, and editing an article mixed up. FWIW I think editing is needed, but we may not all agree herein where, what, who, and how. -Quartermaster 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; I think Bwithh makes good sense: Merge what is relevant, but not really seeing a whole article here. Then again, I may be out of touch with what is considered encyclopedic. Essjay (Talk) 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep - it needs another 'ham handed' edit at least to make it relevant and not autobiographical cruft. Possibly a redirect to Kryptos and a single paragraph there explaining her relevance to it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think it could use some trimming (not quite as dramatic as the one done above, however), but for the topic itself (which is more important, in this situation, than the actual quality of the article) is notable as per WP:BIO, and as such, should be kept. EVula 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and smack somebody with a
troutminnow for sectionalizing the AFD by what version of the article they were seeing at the time. I pity the closer... -- nae'blis (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep. This notable person meets and exceeds WP:BIO criteria. Members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be setting positive examples, not making snide comments such as "oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", which is a provocative and unncessary personal attack by any interpretation. RFerreira 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep though it may need some cleanup. If you are concerned about her edits to that page or to its comment page, the correct response is not an AfD; it would be to go through the mediation process on Wikipedia. Jacqui★ 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't see any problem here. bbx 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Zippy, RFerreira and others. As for her edits, a polite discussion on her talk page along with a gentle, scholarly request that only citations from published secondary sources be included should more than suffice. Wyss 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The subject seems to meet a variety of notability tests. The editing of an article by the subject is not forbidden on WP, and edits are transparent so what is the problem? Aye-Aye 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article very clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. Danny's accusations that this is used for publicity don't seem to be based on anything whatsoever. I sincerely hope Elonka is incorrect in her suspected cause of this AfD. JDoorjam Talk 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments, figure meets WP:BIO notability criteria guideline and the nomination for deletion shows poor form. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm confused. Telsa and Angela and so tried getting their articles deleted, and they're definately known around the world :-) Elonka wants hers kept? <puzzeled look> IIRC Telsa had politely offered to nominate this page for deletion before. Note that Danny is very likely acting in good faith. Kim Bruning 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Note that Angela's fame is
as a Wikipedia founderas a founder of Wikia, Wikipedia board member, and related work. Elonka's article doesn't mention her role in Wikipedia, so the cases are not similar. Also the word "politely" does not easily lend itself to describing the way this was nominated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)- Comment Angela was not a Wikipedia founder...Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Note that Angela's fame is
- Keep. I disagree with Danny's reasoning in his nomination statement. I believe those things he mentions cumulatively make her notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cla68 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per most of above comments. the wub "?!" 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the above comments, notable in her fields of game design and cryptography. Dreadlocke 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. She is quoted in The Guardian and in Science magazine and in The Washington Post + she's mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.com + she has 25000+ Google-hits + she's quoted as a reference in a couple of WP articles + she seems to be fairly known among cryptographers + she is a published author. By the way I don't see how writing a comprehensive explanation (that includes several external references) on a discussion page could be qualified as "very tasteless spamming". And as for "whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", see WP:AGF. --Zoz (t) 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per just about everyone. Everyking 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete has not changed the world. NN. Vanity --Musaabdulrashid 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changing the world is hardly a requirement of notability. If it were, we wouldn't have articles like Alfonso Ribeiro or Mike Edwards (baseball). Ace of Sevens 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- We ALL change the world; the questions that follow have to do with the quantity and quality of those changes. The quantity and quality of our changes to the world, in the context of considering deletion of a biographical entry in Wikipedia, are of course fair game for discussion. -- Quartermaster 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; What a ridiculous and childish spectacle. - 81.178.239.93 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mirror Vax 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northumberland House, Northumberland
This article is for a house with no noted importance or encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisment and comes from an IP of a known vandel. SirGrant 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not sure if this even exists. A search for "Northumberland House" +Wark brings very little besides Wikipedia and mirrors. There is a famous Northumberland House which is (or was) in London. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think it does exist wark %22Northumberland House%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18, [13]. Notability is an issue - I don't see any. Dlyons493 Talk 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Not notible at all (if the vote ends up as a keep, can I write about my house too? ;) Thε Halo Θ 12:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If this house was in the USA, its age would make it notable, and this would be a almost unanimous keep. -- GWO
- Reply But the fact is that it's in the UK, and houses this old are a dime a dozen. I'm sitting in one older than Northumberland House right now. Thε Halo Θ 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, my family's house in London is about the same age as this, and it has no encyclopedic notability at all. There must be tens of thousands of properties of this age or older in the UK Bwithh 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Bwithh 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Molerat 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete my house survived slum clearance, does that make it notable? =) =D doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: all of the articles (date) in baseball have been moved (or soon will be) to the baseball wiki at baseball.wikia.com. per the TransWiki decision at this AfD. Herostratus 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pages Deleted
The following pages have been, or will be, deleted per this discussion. Links are being added here to allow “backlinking” to the discussion in the event that someone attempts to navigate to them and questions why they were deleted.
- January 1 in baseball
- January 2 in baseball
- January 3 in baseball
- January 4 in baseball
- January 5 in baseball
- January 6 in baseball
- January 7 in baseball
- January 8 in baseball
- January 9 in baseball
- January 10 in baseball
- January 11 in baseball
- January 12 in baseball
- January 13 in baseball
- January 14 in baseball
- January 15 in baseball
- January 16 in baseball
- January 17 in baseball
- January 18 in baseball
- January 19 in baseball
- January 20 in baseball
- January 21 in baseball
- January 22 in baseball
- January 23 in baseball
- January 24 in baseball
- January 25 in baseball
- January 26 in baseball
- January 27 in baseball
- January 28 in baseball
- January 29 in baseball
- January 30 in baseball
- January 31 in baseball
- February 1 in baseball
- February 2 in baseball
- February 3 in baseball
- February 4 in baseball
- February 5 in baseball
- February 6 in baseball
- February 7 in baseball
- February 8 in baseball
- February 9 in baseball
- February 10 in baseball
- February 11 in baseball
- February 12 in baseball
- February 13 in baseball
- February 14 in baseball
- February 15 in baseball
- February 16 in baseball
- February 17 in baseball
- February 18 in baseball
- February 19 in baseball
- February 20 in baseball
- February 21 in baseball
- February 22 in baseball
- February 23 in baseball
- February 24 in baseball
- February 25 in baseball
- February 26 in baseball
- February 27 in baseball
- February 28 in baseball
- February 29 in baseball
- March 1 in baseball
- March 2 in baseball
- March 3 in baseball
- March 4 in baseball
- March 5 in baseball
- March 6 in baseball
- March 7 in baseball
- March 8 in baseball
- March 9 in baseball
- March 10 in baseball
- March 11 in baseball
- March 12 in baseball
- March 13 in baseball
- March 14 in baseball
- March 15 in baseball
- March 16 in baseball
- March 17 in baseball
- March 18 in baseball
- March 19 in baseball
- March 20 in baseball
- March 21 in baseball
- March 22 in baseball
- March 23 in baseball
- March 24 in baseball
- March 25 in baseball
- March 26 in baseball
- March 27 in baseball
- March 28 in baseball
- March 29 in baseball
- March 30 in baseball
- March 31 in baseball
- April 1 in baseball
- April 2 in baseball
- April 3 in baseball
- April 4 in baseball
- April 5 in baseball
- April 6 in baseball
- April 7 in baseball
- April 8 in baseball
- April 9 in baseball
- April 10 in baseball
- April 11 in baseball
- April 12 in baseball
- April 13 in baseball
- April 14 in baseball
- April 15 in baseball
- April 16 in baseball
- April 17 in baseball
- April 18 in baseball
- April 19 in baseball
- April 20 in baseball
- April 21 in baseball
- April 22 in baseball
- April 23 in baseball
- April 24 in baseball
- April 25 in baseball
- April 26 in baseball
- April 27 in baseball
- April 28 in baseball
- April 29 in baseball
- April 30 in baseball
- May 1 in baseball
- May 2 in baseball
- May 3 in baseball
- May 4 in baseball
- May 5 in baseball
- May 6 in baseball
- May 7 in baseball
- May 8 in baseball
- May 9 in baseball
- May 10 in baseball
- May 11 in baseball
- May 12 in baseball
- May 13 in baseball
- May 14 in baseball
- May 15 in baseball
- May 16 in baseball
- May 17 in baseball
- May 18 in baseball
- May 19 in baseball
- May 20 in baseball
- May 21 in baseball
- May 22 in baseball
- May 23 in baseball
- May 24 in baseball
- May 25 in baseball
- May 26 in baseball
- May 27 in baseball
- May 28 in baseball
- May 29 in baseball
- May 30 in baseball
- May 31 in baseball
- June 1 in baseball
- June 2 in baseball
- June 3 in baseball
- June 4 in baseball
- June 5 in baseball
- June 6 in baseball
- June 7 in baseball
- June 8 in baseball
- June 9 in baseball
- June 10 in baseball
- June 11 in baseball
- June 12 in baseball
- June 13 in baseball
- June 14 in baseball
- June 15 in baseball
- June 16 in baseball
- June 17 in baseball
- June 18 in baseball
- June 19 in baseball
- June 20 in baseball
- June 21 in baseball
- June 22 in baseball
- June 23 in baseball
- June 24 in baseball
- June 25 in baseball
- June 26 in baseball
- June 27 in baseball
- June 28 in baseball
- June 29 in baseball
- June 30 in baseball
- July 1 in baseball
- July 2 in baseball
- July 3 in baseball
- July 4 in baseball
- July 5 in baseball
- July 6 in baseball
- July 7 in baseball
- July 8 in baseball
- July 9 in baseball
- July 10 in baseball
- July 11 in baseball
- July 12 in baseball
- July 13 in baseball
- July 14 in baseball
- July 15 in baseball
- July 16 in baseball
- July 17 in baseball
- July 18 in baseball
- July 19 in baseball
- July 20 in baseball
- July 21 in baseball
- July 22 in baseball
- July 23 in baseball
- July 24 in baseball
- July 25 in baseball
- July 26 in baseball
- July 27 in baseball
- July 28 in baseball
- July 29 in baseball
- July 30 in baseball
- July 31 in baseball
- August 1 in baseball
- August 2 in baseball
- August 3 in baseball
- August 4 in baseball
- August 5 in baseball
- August 6 in baseball
- August 7 in baseball
- August 8 in baseball
- August 9 in baseball
- August 10 in baseball
- August 11 in baseball
- August 12 in baseball
- August 13 in baseball
- August 14 in baseball
- August 15 in baseball
- August 16 in baseball
- August 17 in baseball
- August 18 in baseball
- August 19 in baseball
- August 20 in baseball
- August 21 in baseball
- August 22 in baseball
- August 23 in baseball
- August 24 in baseball
- August 25 in baseball
- August 26 in baseball
- August 27 in baseball
- August 28 in baseball
- August 29 in baseball
- August 30 in baseball
- August 31 in baseball
- September 1 in baseball
- September 2 in baseball
- September 3 in baseball
- September 4 in baseball
- September 5 in baseball
- September 6 in baseball
- September 7 in baseball
- September 8 in baseball
- September 9 in baseball
- September 10 in baseball
- September 11 in baseball
- September 12 in baseball
- September 13 in baseball
- September 14 in baseball
- September 15 in baseball
- September 16 in baseball
- September 17 in baseball
- September 18 in baseball
- September 19 in baseball
- September 20 in baseball
- September 21 in baseball
- September 22 in baseball
- September 23 in baseball
- September 24 in baseball
- September 25 in baseball
- September 26 in baseball
- September 27 in baseball
- September 28 in baseball
- September 29 in baseball
- September 30 in baseball
- October 1 in baseball
- October 2 in baseball
- October 3 in baseball
- October 4 in baseball
- October 5 in baseball
- October 6 in baseball
- October 7 in baseball
- October 8 in baseball
- October 9 in baseball
- October 10 in baseball
- October 11 in baseball
- October 12 in baseball
- October 13 in baseball
- October 14 in baseball
- October 15 in baseball
- October 16 in baseball
- October 17 in baseball
- October 18 in baseball
- October 19 in baseball
- October 20 in baseball
- October 21 in baseball
- October 22 in baseball
- October 23 in baseball
- October 24 in baseball
- October 25 in baseball
- October 26 in baseball
- October 27 in baseball
- October 28 in baseball
- October 29 in baseball
- October 30 in baseball
- October 31 in baseball
- November 1 in baseball
- November 2 in baseball
- November 3 in baseball
- November 4 in baseball
- November 5 in baseball
- November 6 in baseball
- November 7 in baseball
- November 8 in baseball
- November 9 in baseball
- November 10 in baseball
- November 11 in baseball
- November 12 in baseball
- November 13 in baseball
- November 14 in baseball
- November 15 in baseball
- November 16 in baseball
- November 17 in baseball
- November 18 in baseball
- November 19 in baseball
- November 20 in baseball
- November 21 in baseball
- November 22 in baseball
- November 23 in baseball
- November 24 in baseball
- November 25 in baseball
- November 26 in baseball
- November 27 in baseball
- November 28 in baseball
- November 29 in baseball
- November 30 in baseball
- December 1 in baseball
- December 2 in baseball
- December 3 in baseball
- December 4 in baseball
- December 5 in baseball
- December 6 in baseball
- December 7 in baseball
- December 8 in baseball
- December 9 in baseball
- December 10 in baseball
- December 11 in baseball
- December 12 in baseball
- December 13 in baseball
- December 14 in baseball
- December 15 in baseball
- December 16 in baseball
- December 17 in baseball
- December 18 in baseball
- December 19 in baseball
- December 20 in baseball
- December 21 in baseball
- December 22 in baseball
- December 23 in baseball
- December 24 in baseball
- December 25 in baseball
- December 26 in baseball
- December 27 in baseball
- December 28 in baseball
- December 29 in baseball
- December 30 in baseball
- December 31 in baseball
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep but send to WP:CP. Proto::type 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clan Durie
Notability/importance in question. ghits:[23][ --NMChico24 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems historical enough for me Computerjoe's talk 10:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)- Speedy delete copyvio Computerjoe's talk 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Computerjoe. BigHaz 10:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep its another Scottish clan page. people will have interest.mjgm84 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Mjgm84. gala.martin (what?) 12:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Scottish clans MLA 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio parts are copied from the Electric Scotland site, which would appear to make it a copyvio. Even if that's fixed, where are the sources ? Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, and like most of these just-so-story clan articles, this article has no sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm confused about the WP:copyvio concerns. This seems practically a stub right now. Unless I'm missing something, couldn't this two-sentence article be easily re-written to avoid copyvio concerns? And if it really is copyvio from the Electric Scotland site, isn't that a source then? I don't understand how this article fails both WP:copyvio and WP:V. Verifiable sources must be provided, but I'm inclined to think this article can easily be salvaged. Am I missing something? Allisonmontgomery69 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I stubbed it after tagging it. The previous version was this. It is not all verbatim, but it is in parts and other parts are very close paraphrases:
 |
 |
-
- becomes
|
|
|
-
- Changing one or two words does not make it original work. I asked the creator just now for an explanation re copyright status, we'll see. Verifiability means WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:COPY. Angusmclellan is right, changing one or two words does not negotiate copyvio. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Society of Dark Lily
This appears to fail everything, including WP:NOT, WP:VAIN and WP:NPOV, unreferenced, unnotable, there is a webpage, but... that shouldn't save it from Delete--Richhoncho 10:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing this thoroughly bizarre to read should be saved from this fate. BigHaz 10:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, fails pretty much everything except Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly speedy as patent nonsense. It would take a lot of work to fix this up. --Sbluen 12:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Fails WP:NN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN etc. Should not be clogging up article space any longer than it has to. Thε Halo Θ 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN and WP:V. Potentially could be salvaged if verifiable sources can prove this is actually notable. Even then, this article would require cleanup, wikification, and editing to remove WP:NPOV. In its current incarnation, delete it! Allisonmontgomery69 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. I don't see that being a Satanic group and having a journal asserts a whole lot of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, with 76 exact results from Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PipelineDeals.com
Not notable company, 6 employees, 119 unique ghits. Created by Pipeline Nick (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions are this article and internal links to it. Note that the founder of the company is Nick Bertolino... Can you smell the spam? Pascal.Tesson 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:CORP, also the very last link gives away the spam. Yanksox 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Sbluen 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think per nom sums it up quite nicely —WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 403_Forbiddena
Japanese rock band, with some google hits, but only in japanese (sorry don't understand it), and a wiki hit in the first positions. The article is not wikified and in bad english. Does this qualify as a 'to be kept' entry? Cantalamessa 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It simply being a badly written article does not constitute a delete. Notability needs to be confirmed, certainly. J Milburn 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. They don't have an album out yet, their first album is released next month and seems to be self-published. No 3rd party reviews from established sources in the google results. This doesn't meet WP:MUSIC (which is more important to keeping the article. If only the English was bad, copy editing would suffice. If not wikified, a wikify tag would suffice.) --ColourBurst 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. MyNameIsNotBob 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Famous people with piercings
Similar list to List of famous people with tattoos, which I nominated for deletion yesterday. This list looks somewhat better but is still essentially not maintainable. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Preserve. I think the fact that this page IS being actively maintained renders the 'unmaintainable' and 'useless' arguments null and void. Britmet 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless, unmaintainable article. Benji64 18:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Artw 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete like the tattoo article, too broad a topic.--Jersey Devil 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, incomplete, unimportant. Ramseystreet 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 00:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - what's next? Famous people with false teeth? Famous people with painted toenails? Grutness...wha? 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless list, millions (if not billions) of living people have piercings. Yamaguchi先生 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas clements
Nonnotable schoolboy pianist; nothing on Google; earlier versions were speediable but this one (barely) asserts notability; also apparently created by subject. NawlinWiki 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting that the subject spells his own surname without a capital. Delete. J Milburn 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. At the risk of being mean, perhaps the unusual surname capitalisation might make him notable later in life. BigHaz 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bastardizations of E. E. Cummings notwithstanding, I doubt unusual capitalization of a name alone is enough to make someone notable. If it is, however, I suggest CamelCase or StIcKyCaPs for maximum obnoxiousness. Delete per nom. --S0uj1r0 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Very Tasteful
Notability/importance in question. Appears to be a group of three independent filmmakers. The group members have contributed to other projects that may be of certain note, however Very Tasteful Productions does not seem to warrant an article. Here are their ghits: [69]. Alexa rating for their site 1,101,477. Company's IMDB page: [70]. Only one of the three productions listed has any votes/comments at all, and that one only has 5 votes. — NMChico24 
22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A 7-minute short doesn't make it for notability. Fan-1967 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Just because they don't hold significance for you doesn't mean they don't deserve a page. They've been featured in magazines that I read and on sites I frequent. -- JohnWilliams713 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you could provide links to notable magazine articles, that would be helpful. — NMChico24 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- MacAddict and MacWorld magazines are two of the most notable publications for Apple and Macintosh related stuff. I don't have links off hand because I read them in an actual printed magazine. They've also been considered for the pilot episode of the eBaumsWorld television program that's going to debut on the USA network. — JohnWilliams713 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was unable to find anything relating to Very Tasteful Productions on either the website for MacWorld or MacAddict. As for the eBaumsWorld television program, I did find this release from the eBaumsWorld website, however it doesn't mention anything about Very Tasteful Productions. — NMChico24 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was unable to find anything relating to Very Tasteful Productions on either the website for MacWorld or MacAddict. As for the eBaumsWorld television program, I did find this release from the eBaumsWorld website, however it doesn't mention anything about Very Tasteful Productions. — NMChico24
- MacAddict and MacWorld magazines are two of the most notable publications for Apple and Macintosh related stuff. I don't have links off hand because I read them in an actual printed magazine. They've also been considered for the pilot episode of the eBaumsWorld television program that's going to debut on the USA network. — JohnWilliams713 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you could provide links to notable magazine articles, that would be helpful. — NMChico24
- Keep Very Tasteful has 3 films listed on iMDB, not 1. Also, their short films have been broadcast nationally on CBC many times, including ZeD television, CBC's On Demand, and more recently on Sketch with Kevin McDonald. They also wrote the theme song for Hope is Emo, and extremely popular podcast.— GaryFrill
- Is this a sockpuppet? User:Gary Frill shows newly created, and this comment (made 10 minutes after account creation) is his only contribution. If you create accounts solely to make duplicate votes in an AFD discussion, they're likely to be ignored. — NMChico24 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not a "sockpuppet". I am a fan of Very Tasteful, and was pleased to see an article on Wiki about them. I feel this article is credible, well written, and(more importantly) valid.— GaryFrill
- In response to your comment about Hope is Emo, I have pointed out that individual members of this group have participated in notable projects, however there is still no mention of this particular company. Therefore, it doesn't warrant an article. — NMChico24 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC
- Please refer to the official website of Hope is Emo. Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. Please by all means exercise more thorough means to determine the credibility re: MacAddict (I don't know about MacWorld.. I am only familiar with MacAddict). If you are able to research this submission thoroughly, you will be able to confirm these details with the respective editors of those magazines.— GaryFrill
- Of course there's info in the Hope is Emo page about this company. The author of Very Tasteful put it there. — NMChico24 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstood, please refer to the official Hope is Emo site: [71]. As I wrote before, Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. — GaryFrill
- I am not, nor do I know Gary Frill. I registered a new account because I have never actively participated in a discussion on wikipedia. In a conversation with Billy Reid earlier this evening, he mentioned that he had a wiki now. I checked it out, being a fan of his work and noticed that it was up for deletion. That led me here. I'm from Atlanta, Ga and I'm a very active member of the Macintosh community. Feel free to google me. You won't find any link to this Gary Frill person. With regards to the MacAddict article, you'll have to find yourself a copy of the April 06 issue. They don't post much of their content online. JohnWilliams713
- You misunderstood, please refer to the official Hope is Emo site: [71]. As I wrote before, Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. — GaryFrill
- Of course there's info in the Hope is Emo page about this company. The author of Very Tasteful put it there. — NMChico24
- Please refer to the official website of Hope is Emo. Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. Please by all means exercise more thorough means to determine the credibility re: MacAddict (I don't know about MacWorld.. I am only familiar with MacAddict). If you are able to research this submission thoroughly, you will be able to confirm these details with the respective editors of those magazines.— GaryFrill
- Is this a sockpuppet? User:Gary Frill shows newly created, and this comment (made 10 minutes after account creation) is his only contribution. If you create accounts solely to make duplicate votes in an AFD discussion, they're likely to be ignored. — NMChico24
- Don't Delete I, too, am a fan of Very Tasteful and think that the work that this group has done is more than enough to warrant a wikipedia page. I personally have seen their mentions in macworld and macaddict. Tobobo
- Don't Delete I find this introduction to editing on Wiki very confusing and disappointing. I was told of this debate, and have come here to offer my opinion. Is it not valid because I am new? That doesn't make me feel very welcome. When someone has been advised of this situation, are they not entitled to establish an account and advocate on behalf of Very Tasteful? In any event, I support the evidence offered in favour of Very Tasteful Productions. I have collaborated with them in Vancouver, Canada, and can attest to the legitimacy of the above projects. jonbot2000
- Just because I'm not a regular over at wikipedia doesn't mean I am not credible. You are discrediting an organization many people know and love; of course we are going to come out and fight for the cause. Tobobo
- User's only edits are here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and what appears to be sock/meat puppetry. Ryūlóng 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. Sock/meatpuppets need to be dealt with. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete If the thrust of the deletion request is solely that Very Tasteful is too obscure, then I disagree. They're certainly not well known but I think they have sufficient presence to warrant inclusion on wikipedia, I've heard about them right down here in the antipodes, again through the online Apple community. What's the harm in allowing it? --Benightedbastard 08:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- User's third edit. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Reeks of vanity. We'd rather you make some nice edits to other articles than creating a complete article with a somewhat interestingly detailed bit about your group. The fact each of the members histories are clearly known and its all cleanly documented. I'm doubtful any of this could be verified by reputable sources, because the sources are likely the members themselves, writing about themselves. I mean, "They all grew up in Victoria, BC and met in high school. Billy Reid finished film school in 2003, and is the most versatile member of the group.," that's an unlikley sourcable statement. Its all self-vanity sadly, by virtute of impossible knoledge through anyone but the group themselves as they don't appear to be that fameous in any place I can tell. If you guys are filmmakers, perhaps you do better off to write about stuff you know. One of you likely graduated from Vancouver Film School, go expand the article a little. (Don't list yourself as notable alumni though, you likely aren't yet if this AFD goes for a delete.) If the Billy Reid guy is a composer, he can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Stop getting your buddies to come here to comment on this, and go improve the wiki elsewhere. Have a nice time on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete I had no idea adding a simple article would cause so much debate. True, I spent some time making it perfect, but should not all new articles be as well thought out? I found all of my information on the members from their website, their podcast, from the MacAddict CD's, imdb, articles online: [72], word of mouth, and their short films. This is not, although I now see how it can be assumed as such, a vanity piece. I simply was excited to start my Wikipedia experience with a well written article. It would be a be a shame to delete it, as I feel it holds merit. Please reconsider.Trish Rules
- I don't really know what sock/meat puppetry means although I have an idea, but I do find it unfair that my vote doesn't carry the same merit as anyone else here. Yes, I made an account with the intention of defending this article. Why is that frowned upon? I frequent this site, however I didn't think I had to participate in discussions all day long for my voice to count. That seems pretty elitist. and certainly uninviting and I don't appreciate it. Is it because we're fans of the work?? Shouldn't that go towards establishing their notability, not against it? I've never personally met Billy Reid. I'm a fan of his work and we speak online occasionally. I subscribe to their podcast. I own one of their DVDs and I don't believe this article is a vanity piece and I do believe that they deserve an article. Who knew the politics of Wikipedia were so cut throat. JohnWilliams713
- And not that it probably matters, but this will certainly be the last discussion I participate in on this site. I don't appreciate being called names and bring treated like crap. I had no idea this community would be so unwelcoming. JohnWilliams713
- The primary reason why new users are allowed to participate is that they may have relevant information to offer. The primary reason why their opinions tend to be discounted is when they ignore Wikipedia standards. Overwhelmingly, what we've seen from new users amounts to "I think it should be kept because I'm a fan of it," which has basically no value in the discussion. Fan-1967 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And not that it probably matters, but this will certainly be the last discussion I participate in on this site. I don't appreciate being called names and bring treated like crap. I had no idea this community would be so unwelcoming. JohnWilliams713
Don't DeleteI have reviewed this case since my last posting and would like to highlight some issues if I may. There has been a great deal of condescension dished out to new users such as myself which I think is unfair. I acknowledge that our knowledge of the process is cursory, but I'm not sure that it has undermined this process. It is hypocritical to accuse "us" (new users) of acting in poor taste when the advocates of non-inclusion are guilty of the following: not responding to the assertion re: mac magazines (you were encouraged to pursue this by contacting the editors of the magazines, and have not offered to do so); the claim that one person was unethical by creating a false account based on the subjective belief that "they" have similiar writing styles (how is that credible? It feels underhanded. How can that be "sourced"?); Re: Hope is Emo. Have you consulted the official website for that organization? Why have you not contacted this group about this issue? Again, doing so would legitimize the claim. Once again, you have not indicated you have or will do so. If efficacy is the goal of this site, why are you not playing the devil's advocate? Re: notability criteria. It is demonstrated multiple times that this group has a national/international presence. With their films participating in the New York Musical Theater Festival and the Milan Fim Festival as official selections, this is demonstrated. They have also had their work broadcasted nationally in Canada several times. Hope is Emo, a hugely popular podcast on internet, has been viewed over 1 million times on youtube alone. If you take the time to view this popular podcast, you will see at the end of each episode, an acknowledgement of Very Tasteful Productions. I recognize this is a lenghty entry, but these issues need to be raised and addressed for Very Tasteful advocates to accept your assertions that this group is not credible. Please research the above issues, and explain how they do not match the stated criteria. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbot2000 (talk • contribs)- You can only make one "vote". Ryūlóng 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- OKay. Can you help me delete the first one? Do I simply delete it from the edit page? If so, how do I restore my recent entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbot2000 (talk • contribs)
- You can also not unvote. Your first discussion has been taken into account, as had your second. If the closing admin feels that you made a good argument in either, he/she will take them into account in his/her final decision. And always remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And obviously, if you were "told of this debate" then the author or parties involved in the article have posted a link to this discussion on the fan forums or whatever there is. As such, that will further degrade from any chances of this article remaining included in Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm getting tired of all these accusations thrown at anyone who comes here to defend the article. How is it "obvious" that there has been a posting on a forum? There are no Very Tasteful forums. Apparently using Google is the only method for research on Wikipedia, and if so, Google this fictional "fan forum". I failed to find any such forum. Also, I'm sure that the other new users were unaware of this four tilde requirement at the end of our edits.Gary Frill 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And obviously, if you were "told of this debate" then the author or parties involved in the article have posted a link to this discussion on the fan forums or whatever there is. As such, that will further degrade from any chances of this article remaining included in Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can also not unvote. Your first discussion has been taken into account, as had your second. If the closing admin feels that you made a good argument in either, he/she will take them into account in his/her final decision. And always remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- OKay. Can you help me delete the first one? Do I simply delete it from the edit page? If so, how do I restore my recent entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbot2000 (talk • contribs)
- You can only make one "vote". Ryūlóng 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I would also like to reiterate that I wasn't told that this article was up for deletion in my conversation with Billy Reid. I was simply told that he had an article. It was my decision to take part in this discussion. I wasn't recruited to do so. JohnWilliams71366.239.217.42 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete - Sockpuppets have been taken care of. Iolakana|T 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Zed is cool, but those films and their producers are not encyclopedic. late night drunken canadian trash art.--Musaabdulrashid 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cherished Television
Fails WP:WEB. Alexa 2,539,352. ghits: [77] — NMChico24 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Carl.bunderson 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - one website amongst many on similar/same subjects; no notability to Wikipedia standards; appears to fail WP:WEB badly ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
