Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 24

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

The result was merge and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Donoghue

This article appears to be non-notable, and vanity. I would recommend merging it with the Cyberkinetics article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Delete per nom. hateless 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Two notes Just a quick reminder that a) Merge and redirect proposals don't need to be at AfD, and can be proposed by putting these templates on the respective articles {{mergeto|articlename}} and {{mergefrom|otherarticlename}}, and b) new proposals go at the bottom of the page. Thanks : ) AdamBiswanger1 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close. Err... this is Afd, not Afm... tmopkisn ^tlka 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the cyberkinetics page already has information on John Donoghue. No need for a merge. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Tmopkisn. -- Steel 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment do not speedy close. I have changed my mind and decided that it would be better to delete this article since the cyberkinetics article already includes all necessary information about John Donoghue. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —Minun ^Spiderman 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not-Notable vanity. --Cheesehead 1980 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. I'm OK with redirect after that, too, but have no strong opinion. Medtopic 23:09, 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 merge/redirect to Midnight Rx. --Ezeu 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithium dibromide

I am the creator of this page and I am uncertain whether this page belongs on Wikipedia, whether it deserves a merge, or deletion. I have created this deletion page so that other Wikipedians could evaluate this page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to the relevant episode of the simpsons. I don't think this compound is possible, or at least the nomenclature is flawed because it would probably be ionic. But I'm certainly no chemist. AdamBiswanger1 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment read the article more carefully, i have mentioned the fact that this compound is impossible but still is mentioned in The Simpsons. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I figured. If you want, you can have the page speedied under Criterion for speedy deletion G7, so long as you created it as an accident or there was a misunderstanding about the nature of wikipedia. AdamBiswanger18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not want the page to be speedy deleted. I want it to be evaluated by other Wikipedians and I want them all to decide what to do with it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no need to provide articles for every detail of the Simpsons. -- Whpq 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the trivia section of Midnight Rx. As a stand alone, a gag from a show is absolutely out, especially one that would be trivia for that episode. As a trivia entry for the episode, it's probably ok. Geogre 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to source episode. It's a useful addition to the compilations of fictional medicines and fictional chemical substances, so I wouldn't want it to be lost entirely. --Pagana 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to source episode. It is an interesting analysis of the use of humour in the Simpsons and therefore belongs as part of the episode summary, but not as an article in its own right Adam Slack 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to source episode, per above. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it should be kept because there is enough information for a decent sized article and because there's a good chance that someone might want to look it up and find out what it is, and there's a better chance of them finding what they are looking for if it has it's own article.
• Delete: this is a fictional chemical mentioned in one episode of a cartoon - not notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Have merged Lithium bromide and Lithium carbonate parts + refs in with appropriate articles. Stephen B Streater 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you are the author, you may tag the page with {{db-author}} or {{db|reason}} cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology, I seemed to have not read your message, so lets go with Merge per above —Minun ^Spiderman 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, after merging the content. --Guinnog 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Adam and Geogre. Joe 01:56, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiTree

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You do not have significant article contributions you have made to Wikipedia, besides adding afd tags.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The web site is notable. Searching Google for WikiTree -wikipedia -site:wikitree.org yields several thousand results, some of which can provide enough info to qualify the article for inclusion. It would be a loss to see this article go. I recommend updating it instead with the references available online.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
  • Note - only 150-odd of those are unique hits.Vizjim 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Counting Google hits is not research. It is necessary to read what Google finds. Uncle G 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely true, and you'll note that I haven't voted here. Vizjim 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think notability is also achieved through the ambitious and unique goal of the site. AdamBiswanger1 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)OK AdamBiswanger1 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nah, there's a couple other sites like it, and some doof has been hassling the Wikimedia Foundation to sponsor something like this for years, getting in wars on Commons for uploading too many pictures of his own relatives. Phr (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Site may have ambitious goals and google results, but wikipedia is more strict on notability rules to allow articles on this alone. Hardvice 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Yomangani 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If Wikitree gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Phr (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Phr. Anomo 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a pertty cool idea, but for me, fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient external coverage for a verifiably neutral article. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above —Minun ^Spiderman 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A total of three new references and items for further reading have been added to the article since the discussion was started. Does it still fail WP:WEB? --Amit 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has gotten a little more interesting but the references added are weak. One of them actually states Wikitree is a Wikimedia project. If the article is deleted and later recreated once more documentation is around, the article editors at that time might want to request history undeletion (i.e. recovery of the old, deleted version into the article's public history) so that any useful info in the current version can be salvaged for use in the new version. Phr (talk) 22:36, 25 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City Wiki

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post [1] and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. It's an article on a type of wiki, not an individual one. There's also a German language page on the same thing. de:stadtwiki Looks like the nom isn't paying attention and is putting AfDs up today willy-nilly on anything that has the word wiki. Mithridates 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Appears to be a vehicle for external links to a bunch of related wikis linked in that article. At very minimum, remove all those links. Phr (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I assume everybody's taken a look at this link for example on how the German Wikipedia's written the article and arranged their city wikis? Considering the vast number of wikis out there on individual cities I can't see a reason to delete the article. I could go with a rewrite and removal of individual wiki references but I see no reason for a deletion. Mithridates 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and could add WP:NEO to that list as I can't find evidence of this term in general use.--Isotope23 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but remove the weblinks to individual city wikis, because they are all on city-wiki-center and this is not a weblink-collection. City wikis have attention in Newspapers, the german dpa had a big story earlier this year. If you would like, we can offer this ranking page in englisch to. (I'm one of the founders of allmende.stadtwiki.net - Allmende is an old German word for commons :) --Kawana 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but delete weblinks per WP:NOT a linkfarm. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up, it is a growing type of wiki--169.229.80.226 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is as stated above a verifiably significant wiki genre. Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment article is despammed now but no longer says how to find the city wikis for those cities. The individual city articles don't have them. And spreading those spam links across 10 articles (each with its own high-ranked Google hit for a bazillion keywords having to do with the individual cities) is even worse than having them all in one place. Anyway the current state is better than what was there before. Phr (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the articles weblinks carefully, there you will find the link to list of all city wikis. --Kawana 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• please keep because DavisWiki redirects there — Donama 03:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) DavisWiki was incorrectly redirecting there. Also CitiWiki is a wiki software. This article (City Wiki) is trash so I don't care if it's deleted. — Donama 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if this article is to be kept, it must be renamed to City wiki and be generalised more to explain the term is used for geographical info about all sorts of places.
    • Good point! Anyway I agree with Donama that the article is weak. Phr (talk) 07:47, 26 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Watches

Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There really is no "inappropriate removal of a {{prod}}. All that means it that someone contests the deletion of the article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It doesn't meet the corporate guidelines, and the copy is somewhat ad-junk. The article is also advertising. Geogre 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not your personal ad service -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Reasonable as a company profile, needs a more neutral POV JeffMurph 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as required or suggested by WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:CORP WilyD 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although I think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of keeping out articles on companies. AdamBiswanger1 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VSCA. I disagree with Adam; pendulum has not swung far enough. There is another solo watchmaking guy in Hong Kong who's really notable (made the first low-cost tourbillon watches in the 1990's at a mere $10,000 USD or so when European manufacturers were charging 5x that much) but I've forgotten his name. I'll try to research and write an article about him sometime. Phr (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have made the approriate changes to the page, removed any ad type fluff and have include more information about the company. The company does meet corp level inclusion be Wikipedia terms. NO, I dont make a Swiss watch or sell 5 billion per year, but that should not be the requiment and a 10K per month level is high. Information can be verified elsewhere by third parties. Please remove the delete notice - I am sorry for any inappropriate removal. Thank you. 10:45 24 July 2006.
• Keep Improved company profile that has a more neutral POV nneelsmith 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Naconkantari 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Mattisse 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Naconkantari - ad. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment are there any sources available other than the company website? I can find nothing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The brand really does exist, if that's what you're asking [2] [3] [4] (dialup users beware of many pics in first two links, but they are interesting disassembly reports). But article needs to document notability per WP:CORP and that might not be easy. I think the emergence of Chinese manufacturers of high quality mechanical watches is of great interest in horology and someone more into it than I am should certainly write about it, but Alpha's role in it is unclear and the current article is excessively spammy. Phr (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I meant something that met Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, not a forum. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there's stuff in the glossy watch magazines about the company but frankly I'd consider those magazines less reliable than Timezone. You'll never see a review like this (which caused an uproar in the industry) in any of those magazines, which are basically marketing outlets for the watch brands. Phr (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert with itself and a forum as sources. Wipe this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 25 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 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of highest first week sales

It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Superstrong delete not just per nom, but per it being a bad article. -- Kicking222 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral--The name is bad, but the article could actually be useful.Reppin the bay 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Utterly useless. Crabapplecove 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Misnamed, unsourced, and a-contextual. First week's sales of red socks on the corner of 86th and Lexington? Geogre 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per .Reppin the bay -- Librarianofages 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge...into...ahh...something then Delete Resolute 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom JianLi 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a good list, gives no real criteria for inclusion, and "it is not completely correct" (which makes me suspect OR - it's unsourced, too). Ambiguous name, but that's not a reason for deletion (since the article can just be renamed). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge merge the article into their respective rappers article--Ageo020 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Arbitrary year criterium, unclear exactly what the criteria are, unsourced GassyGuy 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm going to rename the list. If I can manage to verify the information, there should be no reason why it should be deleted. Remeber that our first goal is to clean up, and if that is not possible, throw out. AdamBiswanger1 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem is that a clean up means 1) new title, 2) new sources, 3) verification, 4) explicit criteria. In other words, it's pretty much a total rewrite and page move, which is functionally equivalent to deletion. Geogre 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have to agree with you. I browsed on Google a bit and couldn't find anything. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a fine premise for an article, but unless someone can find something to satisfy WP:V, I'll change my vote to Delete. AdamBiswanger1 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it needs verfiability which is lacking at this point. If this is addressed, then keep. -- Whpq 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This article is lacking any veritable sources or context. --Diehard2k5 | Talk 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why delete it? It's a good article it just needs more references and expansion. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trivial, random, unsourced and U.S centric. It is not worth wasting any time trying to salvage it. Landolitan 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, bad title, and basically useless. --angers 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above, plus complete cruftmagnet and uselessness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrariness personified. Geogre has it, as ever. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 25 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 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Morality and the Law

We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and WP:NOT cliffs notes. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in this form: Having a discussion of one of Foucault's major talks is fine, but this really does look like a digest of the chapter, study notes. Foucault wrote a great deal, and this talk isn't really pivotal. Geogre 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have a Merge suggestion? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom JianLi 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. (that is the book that this is a chapter of (not mentioned in nom). Frankly, no need to throw away good infomation, just put it where it belongs. says so after reading the article and finding the topic interesting —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after reading arguments below. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is verifiable, well-referenced, and, with the addition of an adequate criticisms section, and other restructuring could easily be brought into compliance with the NPOV policy. Additionally, the article is notable because it demonstrates the role of Michel Foucault, Jean Danet, and Guy Hocquenghem in attempting to promote pedophilia, and relates the chapter to a pro-pedophilia petition that Michel Foucault had signed:

  The issue was brought to debate while a reform in the French Penal Code was under way in the Parliament. Many French intellectuals [1] - including Foucault, Danet and Hocquenghem - had signed a petition addressed to the Parliament in 1977 defending the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

  The article is quite useful in understanding the "intellectual" basis upon which pro-pedophilia movements that pose a continuing danger to public safety have attempted to justify their perversions. John254 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not violate any Wikipedia policies. If a "criticisms" section is added, it must of course likewise satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. --Lambiam^Talk 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Surprisingly deep coverage of a lesser work of a highly influential philosopher but This article is surprisingly good is hardly a good criterion for deletion. Article is long enough to justify itself. To suggest Philosophy of Michael Foucault is indiscriminate information is just plain nuts. WilyD 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD and John 254. Wikipedia is Cliffsnotes sometimes. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Topic is encyclopedic as Foucault is a major philosopher. Article is well-referenced with no obvious fluff, and is split from parent article Michel Foucault because of size. Eagle's suggestion of merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 doesn't work because there's no article about that book at present. If one is written, then merging might be possible, though the article is maybe still too large for merging. Phr (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and hope that many similar articles are forthcoming. More important than the Dead Parrot Sketch, however much better-known that may be. Vizjim 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there should be any limits on articles that are in the realm of academics, even if the result is a disproportionate amount of information on a second-tier philosopher (it's one of my soapboxes that I use over and over). If someone wants to write 30kb on an obscure conversation regarding a famous philosopher, that's fine with me. What harm is there in this? When we sit at our computers and wistfully imagine Wikipedia in 30 years, don't we all dream of having so much knowledge on a such an obscure yet dignified topic? AfD is for deleting articles like "List of guns in Halo 2", not anything with such intellectual merit as this.
    • And regarding the style of the article, I have some qualms about the style being a bit on the OR side ("main ideas of the text"), but this can be edited and toned down to read like any other enlightened and neutral explanation of a text. I'll probably do it myself at some point today. So, although the organization is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic, it can be changed to fit quite well in our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This is a conversation broadcast on the radio. Where is any evidence this had any sort of broad implications beyond the initial broadcast? I've heard several nationally broadcast discussions of sexuality and law on morning radio broadcasts in the U.S. Should we start articles for all of those? Best case scenario for those wishing to retain this info would be to move this to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 and expand it beyond that one chapter. As a standalone article about a radio conversation with no evidence of any broader impact or implications it doesn't pass muster in my opinion (and Wikipedia should never be "cliff notes).--Isotope23 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • From what I see it is by and large trivial mention in other works, one reprint (translation) and a mention in the context of a summary of “Politics, Philosophy, Culture”... which is where this article should be moved to if it is retained. I don't see any evidence that the "conversation got far-reaching attention..."--Isotope23 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose that many philosophical works recieve as much attention as, say, Oops, I Did It Again, but that certainly does not limit their notability, especially being that it is from a well-known and highly notable philosopher. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep per WilyD, Phr and John 254. Very good article, notable subject, too bad its not Pokemon or it would never have gotten this many delete votes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep An Encyclopedia should cover all unique and relevant information on every issue. This information is undoubtedly unique and Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher. His opinions expressed in this chapter are really relevant to the debate about "abolition of age of consent laws", once he brings other point-of-views that nobody else has thought of. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
• It doesn't matter if it's a chapter or a book or a whole collection of books. All information in Wikipedia should be subdivided into articles enough to show all different and relevant points of view. The relevance of this radio talk is evident. This should not be reduced or censored by any means, although (of course) it can be edited in other styles or lay-outs. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
• Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and this is not pokemon. It's smart, well-done, and encyclopedic. Themindset 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)

It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per WilyD and John254. I hope the nom isn't actually suggesting that only religous texts are worthy of thorough examination. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment After looking at the talk itself, I've moved a little closer to Geogre's view that the article is mostly summary and could be made shorter, but that's just an editorial issue, the topic is still fine and deletion is not appropriate. Editorial issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, not afd. Simply moving the article is inappropriate since it's a split-out from Michel Foucault about the specific topic. Further editing at Michel Foucault might change that, but not something for afd to deal with. I'd rather leave it up to the article's regular editors who know something about the subject matter.

  I'm not worried about having an article about a chapter of a book in and of itself. We have lots of perfectly good multi-page articles (e.g. Ozymandias) about 14-line poems. Also, we can't count on the talk being online all the time (for that matter, the reader might be using an offline copy of wikipedia), so having a non-copyvio summary of the talk in the encyclopedia helps the parent article considerably. See The Saga Begins for another example. Phr (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-The article is relevant, informative, well-written, and notable. I would hate to see such good information on an oft-repressed subject deleted. -Timzor 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - One last information: in Wikipedia, Foucault has articles in 35 different languages, Nietzsche has in 55 and Hegel in 41. By contrast, Durkheim has in 31 and Baudrillard in 20 languages. I believe all of them are important. Paulo Andrade 22:11, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
• Keep this verifiable and well-referenced article per WilyD and John 254. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Well how about this. Glad I stumbled on this as I can now eliminate the identical text from Age of consent reform which is one of the many places where our new pal has been busy busy. So I would say Keep and tag for cleanup, primarily a severe pruning. Its notable enough for an article (partly, as mentioned above, as another demonstration of why Foucalt is now mostly ignored); it's not notable enough for an article nearly this long. And yes, WP:PAW will get to it (sigh). Not necessarily this year, though. We have many busy busy busy friends. Herostratus 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 30 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Fangames HQ

Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would hardly call it "Non-notable". It's been around since the late 90s, is linked in several articles related to the subject matter ([Example 1], [Example 2]), and is rather large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.42.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Check WP:WEB, please. Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete gamecruft. Artw 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no evidence that this meets WP:WEB, and is also gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable Gamecruft. Crabapplecove 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to encourage editors to avoid using pejoratives like "whatevercruft." For one thing, it's terribly vauge what exactly is "cruft" and for another it's slightly incivil. - brenneman ^{L} 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN JianLi 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft. Take it to a game wiki. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• While the site itself is not the subject of much discussion in magazines, some of the various artists who associate themselves with the site have had their works featured in Japanese and Australian magazines including the creators of Marioween/Blue Twilight and Halo Zero, both of which were either displayed in magazines or on gamespot. Also, the article promises to feature a history of the community concerned with the site, so clearly the purpose of the article is NOT advertising. Both of the titles I was discussing earlier are distributed through channels that aren't directly associated with the site and both titles offer reference to the site in question... which makes it qualifiable under part III of the notability for webcontent. --DimensionWarped 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User has 11 edits - all to this page. Viridae^Talk 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument.

--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Regardless to whether the site is discussed at length or not, content created with relation to the site is distributed by largely recongnized media sources. That fits the rule. If you question that reasoning against deletion, then I'll have to question your reasoning for insistance that this isn't a notable site.--DimensionWarped 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Glaber here, this article is still under construction and the history bit is not ready yet. So the article should stay other wise nothing. (the only thing I could do is reupload)

• To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument. My Arguments for non deletion: As mentioned, this site has been the launchpad for various notable projects as mentioned and is one of the most active fangame communities still around, and it has gone through quite a bit. Many other communities have come and gone, such as Zelda Fangames HQ and Megaman Fangames HQ, but despite the attacks on the site and its community which even took it down from the internet for a while, and demonstrates a fangame community which thrives on just that. Again, many have tried, but they have failed many times. SFGHQ again has a decent amount of success stories, such as the above mentioned games, compared to the other fan game communities, including the much larger Mario Fangame Galaxy.

--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • User has 13 edits. Either to the page nominated for deletion or to this page. Viridae^Talk 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Shadix here, it would be nice if you guys would at least give us a chance to put our article together some. SFGHQ is rich in history and remains one of the larger franchise Fangaming sites out there. There is also quite a bit of useful information that can still be put on it. -Shadixep 05:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wholly support the non-deletion of this article. As previously stated, the article is a work-in-progress and just because you, as a non-Sonic fangamer think the site is non-notable doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's THE most active Sonic fangaming site to date, the longest-running and is associated with the Mario Fangames Galaxy as well as the Sonic Stuff Research Group (when it was on Emulationzone.org) and also is rich in history. As far as non-notable goes, I think you haven't had a toe in the ocean that is fangaming and really either didn't research it at all or only had a little look at it. --Suspchaos 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Though not mentioning your case at all and just saying the site is "non-notable" doesn't give you a case to argue either. We have mentioned few of SFGHQ's history which you have obviously overlooked in your quest to see this page removed. I must also mention, according to the WP:WEB that Kinu linked to. Our content has received awards from publications including Gamespot (it's on Gamespot which is a notable achievement in itself since very few fangames developed make it onto sites such as Gamespot or 1up. --Suspchaos 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already presented a counterpoint which nullifies your argument for the deletion of the article Lilithborne. --DimensionWarped 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't worry about it anymore. We're not going to fight a battle that we probably won't win. Just delete it. Enjoy your minor victory, Wikipedianals. --Suspchaos 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• All that really matters is that it meets the criteria for notability. And it meets that criteria, so I really don't see how there can be any further argument on it. Atlus meets the criteria for notability simply for articles on games they produced. The magnitude-ignoring assumption there is that if a product of notability is affiliated with a group, then that group is in itself notable. And people, this isn't a bloody vote. It's a debate on notability. Either state legitimate reasons or don't state anything at all.--DimensionWarped 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete it. Everybody has their own opinions as to what and what isn't notable. And just because a few people (who interpret the rules incorrectly and to their advantage) find it useless doesn't mean it is. Perhaps you should just ignore it if it is so useless to you. It obviously isn't useless to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Not notable gamecruft. Viridae^Talk 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. To 70.130.145.169 and DimensionWarped: there are guidelines on what can and cannot be included on Wikipedia, and we are following them to the letter. See WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pure gamecruft, and NN --Bschott 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Guys, please take a look at this essay: WP:FAN. If you really think that an article can be written on your forum that doesn't fall into fancruft as defined there, please write it and stick it up. At present, the article is little more than unencyclopedic gibberish. Vizjim 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whether or not the article meets WP:WEB (i.e. whether or not the required notability exists out there in the real world), the notability is not currently documented in the article. If the documentation exists and can be added to the article, we can revisit. Demonstrating notability is up to the article authors, who should put necessary docs into the article itself. Other editors are not expected to go search for it. Phr (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I support not deleting this article. Like many have said the article is under construction and the site is rich in history. -W.A.C. (7/24/06)
• Keep. It's oviously notable. Just search for it on Google! --Mark the Echidna 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to note that the article as of 10:11, 24 July 2006 is drastically different from the original article. If some of you are basing your arguments on the content of the current entry (which is about as unencyclopedic as I could ever imagine), consider just whether the topic alone merits an entry - regardless of whether or not its current incarnation is, as you say, fancruft. Workaphobia 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User has 2 edits. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely. However I would like to remind everyone here that "Gamecruft" or "Fancruft" is not a Wikipedia guideline, and is thus never grounds for deletion. The causes for deletion are WP:NOT and WP:WEB, not "gamecruft." Dark Shikari 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Leave it be. Don't you guys have other things to worry about? It's a fansite. Not a cult of any kind. What damage is this going to do Wiki? None! By the way, get yourselves educated. Furthermore, what is gamecruft? You guys never explained what the hell it is? SFGHQ is much bigger than you "deleters" think. Just do a google search. Sonic Stadium is a another big fansite. If you wish too, go to Moogle Cavern wish could be said to be the "sister" site of SFGHQ. Most, if not all the olde members of SFGHQ post there quite often.
  • "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
    • SFGHQ isn't a cruft in the least. What part of thew word SONIC FAN don't you guys understand? SFGHQ is merely a fansite.
• Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe you all should actually read WP:WEB and pay particular attention to section 3. I already stated that the questioned webcontent meets section 3 which means it complies with WP:WEB.
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most notable site for creating Sonic fan games and a rapidly growing community. The article will only have to be remade later when the site become even more popular.--Eraysor 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the event that this site reaches notability, I am sure noone will have any problems with it being remade, but until then... Viridae^Talk 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm torn on this one. This site has been around for an eternity and has been very influential in the creation of many notable fangames, but as a website I don't believe it's notable. Only 4,690 results from Google on "SFGHQ", the common abbreviation. Even less for the full name of the website in quotations. The fact that the article itself is a stub, and a rather bad stub at that, doesn't help. Also, note that you're going to get meatpuppets lured in from this forum topic here: http://sfghqmb.com/showthread.php?t=495 -MysticEsper 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would that link warrant putting up {{afdsock}} on this AfD? --NeoChaosX 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Funny. I don't see a single person who is for this article staying that has been as weak in explaining their stance as the majority of the opposition.--DimensionWarped 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also WP:CVG#Scope_of_information for additional guidelines on how to write an article for inclusion in an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
• Delete, per WP:WEB. --NeoChaosX 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Meatpuppets? You know there are actual people behind this. God you guys are about as elitist as it gets. Call off the debate, just let the bums delete it.
  • Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment DimensionWarped, I have in the past been a SFGHQ member, and no offense to you or anyone else, but all forums, no matter the notability, have their fair share of "me too" bandwagon hoppers. Simply being linked from a current forum topic is going to lead to people seeing the AfD and clicking on it. I prefer all information to be put forth out in the open, so I linked the forum topic and explained the situation so everyone knows as many facts as there are to know. After all, if the site truly is notable, linking a forum topic and saying a few meatpuppets are posting won't make any difference on the consensus. I will note that I'm perfectly happy to change my vote if I see evidence to the contrary, but currently all I see is "A bunch of popular fangames got their start here", which I don't see as notable in of itself. -MysticEsper 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The next person to say delete per WP:WEB had better say exactly what the hell makes it not meet the 3rd potential qualification on WEB.--DimensionWarped 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Which of these: online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. is it distributed by? Viridae^Talk 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess gamespot fits into the category of online magazine, though I'm not certain exactly. They do broadcast, but it would be hard to give them a specific label. There are also some appearances of titles in tangible magazines.--DimensionWarped 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not debating anymore, but at least when the head comes to evalutate and if it is decided to be deleted, we can get an informed reason as to why. --Ssbfalcon 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the fact that notable games may have come from the site and that notable people have been involved with it is frankly irrelevant. My last name is the same as previous winners of Scottish Chess Championships, but that doesn't mean that I should have my own article. The fact that the site is old doesn't mean that it's notable, either. This fails WP:WEB because no coverage has been about the site itself, only games that used the site as a "staging ground." There is no notability by proxy here. syphonbyte _(t|c) 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Finally! A sign of intelligance! If we're lucky, we'll see someone else explain their reasons... --- End Of Transmission 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Couldn't the site meet the requires for being an internet publisher? It is "publishing" and responsible for the "distribution" of these games.Shadixep 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would a merger into the article Sonic Stuff Research Group be appropriate? --Ilascott 02:07, 29 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kylexyinfo

Fails WP:WEB This is a fan site, not the official website for the show. No alexa rating at all. Just not notable. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. I almost put it up for speedy delete when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Just another fan site. There is no evidence that it has been mentioned by other media (meaning non-web), nor that it has made a contribution to the world in general. Fans can happily chat with fans. Geogre 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- fan site, WP is not a list of internet sites. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and Dipics AdamBiswanger1 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• The music section of this website is information submitted by Music Supervisor on Kyle XY Chris Mollere. It is updated every week and so far the only place where a full list of music is listed. This is also the site with transcripts for all aired episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngo205 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Steel 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:39, 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.

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interspecies erotica

Dicdef, nn-neologism abakharev 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable term. Never heard of it before. Not much of an article anyways. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is two sentences and is unknown to people who didn't see the movie. -ScotchMB 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wow, a joke from a movie. Wow. Until someone can point to a 10 year history of the genre, it's just another case of someone seeing the movie and typing into a search box here. Geogre 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The genre (which has nothing to do with bestiality, contrary to this article) actually has a history that is at least 30 years old. We have a proper article on one aspect of it at Rishathra. Uncle G 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See, that's the problem. In science fiction, there has always been that "Kirk kisses the alien chick" stuff, and there has always been a form of science fiction novel that takes it further, but for those bordered by the terrestrial "interspecies" means either Clan of the Cave Bear or, much more likely, bestiality. Geogre 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not entirely clear what problem you're describing. Inter-species means between species, whether one is talking about science fiction or not. Arguing that there's confusion because to some this is a straightforward synonym for bestiality (which has the logical consequence that this article should be a redirect) contradicts your argument that this isn't such a synonym but merely a once-off joke in a movie. I argue that it isn't synonymous with bestiality at all, that the content of this article is based on a joke in a movie, and that thus there's no confusion. ☺

      Further to the point about the genre: Read this. Uncle G 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "The problem" is that it is a term that means one things to science fiction fans and another thing to non-science fiction fans. To the one, it can be a genre. To the other, it's just a faux euphemism. Therefore, there's no way to keep it as a redirect to or parent of the science fiction "genre," because that term would be disturbingly inappropriate to people who think about real species. Geogre 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no need for it to be the parent of anything. The parent is sex in science fiction, which can gain a breakout article on the subject of interspecies sex should it ever need to. (It doesn't seem likely right now, given that the subject has roughly 1 sentence of discussion there at the moment. ☺) Uncle G 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. [Insert joke about "interspecies glamour photography" here] Silensor 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism from a joke in Clerks II. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a repository for one-shot jokes from movies for which no one over the age of 12 is going to bother searching. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. It does occur in Science Fiction (e.g the Ringworld series) so there could be scope for an article but it'd be easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the place to catalogue every phrase from movies. JeffMurph 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — and I immediately thought Rishathra, also. However, this is a dictionary pseudo-definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• CommentIt also mean beastility? Wow, you learn something new from Wiki every day. I expected an indepth article about erotic relationships of intelligent species in fiction. Somewhere all the half-elves have to come from after all. (Reminds, I hope that book about that alien and that woman arrives soon, it sounded fairly interesting and slightly raunchy.) --84.184.95.77 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I learn something from Uncle G every day. It's apparent that an article at this namespace could be appropriate. However, this one certainly is not, for the reasons listed above -- no need for a page for a movie catchphrase, and no dicdefs. Delete. Jacqui^★ 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Edit. Keep, did you guys just search for it for the sheer purpose of deleting it? There are probably some other catch phrases from movies here, so I do not know what makes this one so wrong. I do think it could be edited in light of recent arguments, though.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4 as Suisky. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suisk

• NN-neologism, Delete abakharev 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment also look into Suisky appartently deleted by three admins as a hoax, currently deleteprotected abakharev 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like a definition. Is it enough to be transwikied to Wikitory? -Royalguard11^Talk 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a protologism. It's not in English usage, so no Wiktionary. Geogre 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it can't survive there, and it's a definition, then it doesn't belong here. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO, article itself asserts its non-notability in the first sentence. Huh. Might be a speedy G4 it if it's similar to a version of Suisky. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism and probable hoax. ("is believed to have been used by a servant explaining to the king what he had seen his wife doing with one of the Lords"). Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. AdamBiswanger1 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, protect from recreation, nonsense hoax. NawlinWiki 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong delete per nom and NawlinWiki. 1ne 20:52, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete as simple, pretty much word-for-word, re-creation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie). Please make use of {{db-repost}} for this sort of thing, rather than creating a whole new AFD nomination. Uncle G 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's So Raven: The Movie

This was nominated for deletion before, but someone has recreated the page. It all seems to be fancruft or speculation; as was said in the first discussion, there is no evidence to suggest a That's So Raven movie being produced in the near future. LBM 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• If it was recreated, then it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. If it doesn't Delete Anyways for being not announced. Wikipeda isn't a crystal ball. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• That's So Deleted Danny Lilithborne 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect against future resurrection. Crabapplecove 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, that's so crystal balling. Speedy G4 if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• G4 speedy delete: Recreation without change of the fundamentals that got it deleted in the first place. Geogre 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Good use of the name, Kinu. -TrackerTV 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP is so not a crystal ball. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect from further recreation, that's so a recreation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• That's So Stupid!, I know we're supposed to be polite but somebody has got to stand up for quality on Wikipedia. There must be 1 decent article for every 500 submitted. I think every article submitted to Wikipedia should be marked for deletion, and then we could undelete the ones worth keeping. george 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalballism. It isn't even in pre-pre-production. --DarkAudit 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP not being a crystal ball AdamBiswanger1 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• G4 speedy Computerjoe's talk 17:00, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and it's not comfy. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klippan (sofa)

Non-notable IKEA product. Spam-like. Fireplace 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Mind boggling that someone would create an article about a sofa. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Show some references, some mentions of the importance, some usage other than the catalog. Otherwise, voting to keep is voting against the deletion guidelines. Further "notable" isn't a justification for an article. This is one model in the IKEA catalog. While the Billy might make it (as one of their oldest units and the first to be popular, and therefore the one that made the company successful), this isn't a Billy. Geogre 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some usage other than the catalogue was in fact already in the article. It wasn't immediately obvious, I grant you. But it should be now. Uncle G 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • N.b. Uncle G and others have been rewriting and improving the article. I still can't quite change my vote, as I think 1980 doesn't really make this one of the Sofas that Made IKEA, but the article as it is now is vastly superior to the one that I and the above voted on. My vote now is a much weakened delete. Geogre 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep after the rewrites. I'm still not convinced that anything new when I went to college is a "classic," but this is a well done article now. Geogre 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a notable product. Particularly in home furnishings, an industry where trends come and go like fireflies, it's extraordinary that this continues to be popular after a quarter of a century. Definately more notable than any number of products we have articles for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- Librarianofages 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Both notable and comfy. george 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks to be WP:OR: A more elegant solution is to feed a broom handle.... Also, being more notable than other products with articles is an argument to delete those, not keep this one. - Yomangani 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I didn't consider one article (discounting the passing references in the other sources) to be 'multiple non-trival published works', so as far as I was concerned it was failing WP:CORP. However a little digging brings up a few articles specifically about the Klippan, and since the original research has been removed I have to change to a 'Keep'. Yomangani 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh no ya don't No sofa models from Ikea, please. I think there's probably something like 25,000 Ikea products, and none of them are notable...even if I'm sittin on one now. AdamBiswanger1 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• As per WP:CORP, the primary criterion for products and services is that they be the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their companies. The vast number of IKEA products will not satisfy that criterion, their only mentions being in product catalogues. However, this one does. There was a whole study published about how this specific sofa burns, for one thing. Keep. Uncle G 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the fire safety report isn't about this sofa in particular - in the report they use three custom built sofas based on the Klippan (probably because it is a common make) Yomangani 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. It's about this very sofa with various different flame retardants applied to it. From page 12 of the source cited by the article: The IKEA sofa “Klippan” was used as the model for all three sofas. Uncle G 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The study is about fire safety regulations, not about fire safety in the Klippen model, and the sofas are based on the Klippen model rather than being the Klippen: Three different sofas were used for this study, all based on a standard, commercially available European model sold by IKEA (the “Klippan” model). This model is currently marketed with a mainly polystyrene rigid frame, but for this study a wooden frame was used because this is more representative of typical furniture on the market. I'd say this amounted to trival coverage (even if it wasn't a fire safety report). - Yomangani 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if this sofa really did make it as an iconic piece of design like the Barcelona chair, then it would be a keep, but there's one newpaper article about it. A fire safety test report doesn't count, nor does a mere mention of the product in the Kuwaiti Times. At best, merge into Ikea. -- Whpq 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference to the Kuwaiti Times is to source the previously contested point that the sofa is named after the place in Sweden. Not everything has the purpose of establishing notability. Sometimes a source is being cited for the simple reason of providing a reference for something in the article that needs to be sourced. ☺ Uncle G 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note Verifiability/references for this topic are not a problem. Here is a BusinessWeek story on the history of the Klippan. And here is one from the Scotland Sunday Herald. I'm sure it would be possible to find quite a lot more, especially if we count interior/industrial design magazines and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I think the Sunday Herald article is sufficient to establish that the sofa is considered a significant piece of design. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The sofa looks notabler and notabler with each of the references added, and if Lars Engman is the main designer of this sofa (and probably many other mass-produced and recognized pieces of furniture) and the current chief designer of IKEA, he should probably have an article too. I found some references to Klippan (commonly called a "classic") in a Swedish newspaper article database. I haven't looked through all of the hits, but the current head of IKEA Sweden, Jeanette Söderberg, declared Klippan to be her favorite IKEA product in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet (2005-01-22). According to an article in Aftonbladet (1998-09-13) on "why men like leather sofas", Jean-Pierre Barda, Swedish celebrity hairdresser and former member of Army of Lovers, had a Klippan in brown cowhide at home. up+land 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it passes Geogre's notability standard then it certainly passes mine ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral as the conflicted nominator. Some of the sources seem to be about the Klippan qua paradigmatic IKEA product, rather than qua itself. Fireplace 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above as rewritten by Uncle G and others. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 25 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC MD

Advertisement and self promotion. Tagged with "prod" on 5/22/06; tag removed by IP user in the same region (Chicago) as the business is located. Diogenes00 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "more information will be added re benefits of home computer service" That's from his explanation for removing the prod. It's definetly just an ad. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising for a particular product. Decision tree diagnosis software isn't sold for a simple reason: it can kill people. Geogre 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete adspam. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you're suggesting this article be speedy deleted, it does not meet the criteria as explained here. But if you didn't mean it that way then ignore this comment. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Crossed out my comment because I now realize that the user did not mean "speedy deletion." --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Based on Hoover's, they have 2 employees and annual sales of less than $100,000. Sounds like WP:CORP failure to me and a bit of WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as advertisement. Dark Shikari 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - non-notable. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely more of an ad than an encyclopedia article. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious self promotion. --angers 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and its a pity that the author didn't realize that expanding his advert wouldn't help make it into an article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete, no assertion of notability imho. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:36, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding hamster

By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE

Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. After all, detailed obscure topics hurt no one. It is a valid topic. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Chris —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to MikroBitti as that is the most approprate place for this. Crazynas ^t 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Chris, also pls define where it falls under WP:NOT I can't really understand where you're coming from, because as far as I can see it doesn't fit under any of the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" catergories! -- Librarianofages 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that that is not our only content policy. The verifiability of this article is also an issue. If, as the article states, the joke was never discussed or explained by the people who made it, who were the only people who understood what it was about, how can a verifiable encyclopaedia article on the subject be written? Where are the sources? Uncle G 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the Exploding hamster and Exploding head and Exploding sheep. The rest of the exploding items are legit articles. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of in-jokes about computer gaming works for me. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I never heard of a hampster exploding because it was released from scotch tape, but at the Columbus, Ohio zoo I once saw an elephant blow snot out of its trunk while its handler was unchaining it. I hope that helps. george 06:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a place for obscure finnish jokes JeffMurph 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a place for obscure jokes -- GWO
• Delete Not a place for jokes. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• PS That is a joke. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the joke, which has stopped being used, has not reached any degree of prominence outside that sector. AdamBiswanger1 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as silly. -999 (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a humour site. Landolitan 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even close to being encyclopedic material. --angers 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As I understand it, it's some random joke used a couple of times in some magazine hardly anyone in the English speaking world has heard of? -- Steel 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "I've never heard of it." isn't an acceptable argument at AFD. But "It has never been documented, in any language." is. Uncle G 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I shouldn't have worded it that way, and there are plently of things on Wikipedia I have never heard of, but I don't put them all up for deletion on the grounds of "I've never heard of it". I'll strike out that, but it's still a minor (and per above - obscure) joke which is hit by WP:NOT indiscriminate info. -- Steel 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete come on. Take this to Uncyclopedia. Stormscape 04:30, 25 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 Obvious. Naconkantari 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IGN_users

Do we really need this page? Seems like nonsense to me ScotchMB 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - extremely unencyclopedic. Kalani ^[talk] 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No questions asked. Lorty 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, useless. Voice of Treason 01:53, 24 July 2006

(UTC)

• Very speedy delete Nonsense.Reppin the bay 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Quick... Speedy Delete! --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per db-group. So tagged. Fan-1967 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 as article about group with no assertion of notability. Could possibly be an A1 for lack of context. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Non-notable A7. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete about as unencyclopedic as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] schoolhandbook.blogspot.com

Removed without comment. a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -ScotchMB 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails also WP:CITE --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, hosted on Blogspot usually translates to failing WP:WEB. Look at the three entries as well... ooh. WP:SNOW candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, not much of an article. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not your blogvertising service. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Bribe some one to rip your homework up when you're not home. Why, that's clever AND hilarious! Not. george 06:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rubbish!! Why not speedy delete?
  • Comment Because it doesn't really meet the criteria. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. Then put the ashes in an old mayonaisse jar, roll the jar up in a carpet, throw the carpet into a river and launch the river into the sun. Repeat as needed per WP:SPAM et al. WilyD 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MrDolomite. --DarkAudit 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Numerous notable blogs are on blogspot--Atrios.blogspot.com, SusanPolgar.blogspot.com, etc. But this isn't one of them. Phr (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it in a fire with great prejudice. Dark Shikari 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Double extra delete. Plus everything written above. Mithridates 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Funny, but Non-notable blog. (I went to the website and it cracked me up!) Chipka 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The blog actually does get a lot of visitors. I guess not enough. 11kowrom 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --awh (Talk) 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This looks like a snowball --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --nkayesmith 07:16, 25 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. DS 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TrustedID

fails WP:CORP ranks almost 3 million on Alexa; spam links to this company have been placed in other articles. Rklawton 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Thanks for beating me to the punch. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, looks like WP:VSCA. Not sure of speedy status, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whichever Way You Want per above. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speedy or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could have sworn we'd already deleted this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 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.

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

The result was deletion. However, does everyone realize that the O.J. Simpson carchase was eleven years ago? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s retro movement

The retro movement described in the article appears to be purely speculative. Unlike other retro movements, this one is not widely considered to have occurred. Also, the references to events in the future are bizarre. Originalbigj 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CITE --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete I saw this page a few days ago and said to myself, "This is a horrible page. Why does it exist? I should AfD it." But, me being as ADD as I am, I forgot after about fifteen seconds. -- Kicking222 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Yeah, what is this predicting the future, "Pokemon will die in 2010"...Definitely gotta delete. Reppin the bay 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Deep thoughts, man. Let's, like, imagine that, like, people are going to be buying wide ties like the 90's nostalgia for the 70's. That would be so cool! When the 90's nostalgia (other than nostalgia for the US presidents) hits, and when it is past tense, and when it has been discussed elsewhere, it will be time. Otherwise, this is IR (idiosyncratic research). Geogre 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what is this? Crystal ballzzzz. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would think to have an article on a retro movement, that time period should be at least a decade away. Come back in 4 years. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The gold standard for nostalgia is Happy Days. This T.V. show from 1974 was a nostalgic look back to 1954. Then, in 1978, Fonzi jumped the shark but that's not my point. The point is, you have to wait 20 years to look back on a decade. I mean, if they are still selling Pokeman Cards, then it isn't nostalgia, its just a continuation of the Pokeman thing, which I don't get by the way. Take the Viet Nam war for example. They were still fighting it hot and heavy in 1973, but that doesn't mean it was a nostalgic throwback to the 1960's, it was just the war continueing on. In fact, to reminisce about the Viet Nam war we created M*A*S*H, which was purportedly set in Korea but was really about Viet Nam and you know it. george 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like the line talking about 1990s Adult Contemporary music continues to be played on workplace radio stations; notably Detroit's WNIC. I think that's by force and not by fad, you don't hear alot of new Celine Dion or Kenny G stuff anymore, and most music today I wouldn't consider "office-friendly". Also, these points;

Many bands from the 1990s such as Green Day and Smashing Pumpkins continue to record music in the 2000s.

Sonic the Hedgehog is remade for modern game consoles.

Bands and video game franchises can last more than one decade? I never knew that, my mind has been blown! (faints) Nate 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Terrible. JeffMurph 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Try to assume the mind set of someone who would type in 1990s retro movement. They may be wondering if such a movement exists or not, that question is itself an iterestig and evolving question and should be covered in an expanded issue. There is also a theory about retro movements that they are the emotion responses of new parents to the pressures of adult life looking to reconnect with the existence of their childhood, that is retro is by its nature an effort to return to a more infantile state. Someone who was 13 years old in the mid 1990s is still a young adult and probably not yet old enough to turn conservative. A fuller discussion of if there is a 1990s retro, if one evolves (it will in about 5 years, they always do) and its history would be a breakthrough article for Wikipedia, the first time such a fine grained social event could be followed publically. Its the kind of thing Encyc Britannica could never do. Also having lived through the time I notice the kids are now waring 1987 retro, so we can see 1990s retro soon. Anyways I fail to see the damage this does if someone just edits it some.--Rhooker1236 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment How on earth can you pinpoint "1987 retro"??? Are you being serious? Cultural things aren't THAT well defined that we can say "oh, that's 1973 retro" or "That's 1981 retro!". --Rehcsif 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - besides, you admit yourself that we're talking about "if one evolves". It hasn't yet, so there's no need to write about it until it has. When it does, then it's a useful topic. BigHaz 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is lame. Furby's are 8 years old. Tamagotchis are 9. These toys took a few years to dwindle away, so we're talking maybe things 5-6 years old are now "retro"?? Check back in 15 years and then we can maybe write this article. I knew a guy when I was in college in 1990 who had an Atari 2600 in his dorm, but we didn't call it the "1980's retro movement"... --Rehcsif 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: How on earth can he tell what will happen in the future? --awh (Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. While I admire that this page is well defined. The 1990s just aren't retro yet. Sure there are nostalgic teens and adults from the era, but the '90s just aren't that retro yet. This article will make more since in the tweenz (2010s). By the way I am very nostalgic towards the '90s. The '90s rocked! (Tigerghost 04:02, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up To The Ground

Again, WP:NOT a Crytal Ball. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bugs, but allw for recreation when more info is present.
  • Never mind. Weak Keep. It won't harm anyone and it won't take lonbg to find out about the plot, characters, etc. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands now, as unverified. Article claims "is filming" but all the cited sources just say "has been signed to appear". Need actual verification that it is filming, not six-month-old articles that say it was going to. Every source I can find is dated in March, with not an update since. Fan-1967 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no inherent value in an article about a movie with "no release date and no announced plot". If indeed more information becomes available regarding this then it can be recreated, but as of now it's just crystalballism. DrunkenSmurf 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as "empty, no content." What is there is that there is a movie, the production date nobody knows, about a thing no one has heard, that will be released nobody knows when, but here is a title. Borderline pranksterism, and we ain't aint-it-cool-news.com. Geogre 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Once the movie is actually announced by IMDb or a film company, then it should be created. As of now, it's all speculation. Not a crystal ball. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't go by IMDB. They have a really bad record on movies "in development" that never happen. Wait at least for cameras to roll. Fan-1967 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete any article which contains the phrase "upcoming movie with so far no release date and no announced plot". -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to the Ground, crystal-ballism for film that hasn't even begun production yet. None of the links are to reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now maybe recreate the article when (and if) more information about the movie becomes available. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:38, 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.

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

The result was lies. DS 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desinterism

Per the article, "Term desinterism was used for the first time in USSR in 1964". Only problem is, with zero GHits, it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone, at any time. Looks like Original Research and Neologism. I also can't find any references to "Golden paprika" that don't refer to a color or a spice, so total hoax is possible. Author has no other edits. -- Fan-1967 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete.Very likely a hoax. Crabapplecove 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nomination was worth a chuckle. Danny Lilithborne 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The word should actually mean grave robbing. No evidence that anyone has used such a term, much less that it stands for a recognizable economic practice. Geogre 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right! I missed the "de" for "di." Des-inter? De-sinter? Whatever it is, it isn't. Geogre 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - hoax. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:08, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Bermuda Triangle incidents

This is neither a list of incidents nor even a list of links to them. It's mostly a collection of links to various dates and various types of craft. Crabapplecove 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This may need to be re-written (a little) but does appear to be an important list. -- Librarianofages 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just becuase an article is in need of improvment, does not mean we need to delete it. I would suggest putting {{cleanup-list}} at the top of this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Just needs cleanup. Penelope D 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Slap a cleanup tag on it, it looks like a worthy topic for an article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some cleanup JeffMurph 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if we deleted every article that needed a cleanup ...well WilyD 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's maintainable, a category wouldn't do (some of the incidents don't have sufficient information to write about on their own), and there's enough information and sources available to make this work well. Captainktainer * Talk 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Deleting articles is reserved for cases in which the topic is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The topic and list is most definitely appropriate, and while it could use cleanup, there is nothing wrong with the article per se. Dark Shikari 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - re-write to make it an important list. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is important. Creating a harder than deleting 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see how proper cleanup and citing of sources is possible, and given the length of the list, I doubt anyone is going to try to verify and source all these claims anytime soon. The topic is not appropriate because "incident" is too vague and subjective a term. What is an "incident" as far as this article is concerned? Crabapplecove 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep this please the topic is appropriate for wikipedia Yuckfoo 13:53, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of German exonyms for places in Latvia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus, much less a language translator. Crabapplecove 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is an extremely useful list, no where else except WP are you likely to find such a thing. -- Librarianofages 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - please share with us, then, to what extremely useful use you would put this list? BlueValour 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Librarianofages. The stength of wikipedia is the diversity of topics it covers. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Interesting, but not remotely encyclopedic. Probably belongs on the German Wikipedia or some sort of language conversion wikia Resolute 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't even know if the Germans will take it, but good of you to offer it to them, Resolute. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge i Think its interesting. maybe should put the said exonyms for the places in the 'places' article itself. --Ageo020 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Works fine where we have articles, but our coverage of Latvian geography is still spotty. up+land 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The German names of places in Latvia (like Libau, Mitau, Jakobstadt, Kircholm) are often used in older publications, not only in German. Anyone who has read anything on Northern European history is likely to be aware of this. They are found in the traditional names of battles such as the Battle of Kircholm. A conversion table like this is quite useful. I could imagine having this transwiki'ed to an as-yet non-existent onomastic Wikimedia project eventually, but for the time being I think it should stay. up+land 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Find it a better home Useful information within scope of Wikimedia umbrella, but not in the right place or format as an en.wikipedia article. Keeping for the time being per Uppland is a reasonable idea. Phr (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, transwiki to Wikibooks? -- that would give tons of scope for expansion. Look at the talk page of Gdansk to see how messy this city-renaming problem gets. Phr (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MrDolomite. Cannot see how this is encyclopedic. Alternatively, transwiki to Wikibooks or a more appropriate location. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep  The Steve  01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is not a Latvian-German dictionary. BlueValour 03:22, 29 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. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs

It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a list of every parody of every item ever created. I don't even know if a comicwiki would let this fly. Course if they did let it fly, it would need a cape. :)  -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to. Apologies all around! -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with swipe (comics). MrDolomite is right they are not spoofs, rather they are often an homage. The list isn't necessarily Original Research because there are forum discussions that document swipes (see links at the end of the swipe page). Journeyman 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Save—I think the list is notable and interesting, though perhaps homage is a better term. I don't like swipe, because that implies that it was stolen or copied out of laziness. Ragdoll 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Journeyman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have small sub-sections for the swipe page for the covers that have been homaged/copied so many times that the amount of swiping itself is notable, as FF#1 certainly qualifies. However the article as it is isn't enough to justify its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 25 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 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Meteos planets

It either needs to be completely redone or, IMHO, deleted. It's nonstop opinion throughout {"very strange", "it's great", "sounds like", etc.) and reads very much like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else. The statistics almost certainly were, and are therefore a copyright violation. Crabapplecove 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would have tagged it with {{move to gaming wiki}} if I have seen that article lately. The information does not fit Wikipedia, the simple list of planets could go in Meteos, while all the extra information may go to a gaming wiki. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, Move to gaming wiki per ReyBrujo. There is no need to delete potentially useful infomation, just put it in the right place! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to main article then rewrite and condense. Noting some of the wilder characteristics (such as for Gravitas or Hevendor) would be useful for the main Meteos article, but comprehensive stats are things for a gaming wiki (or Wikibooks?), especially when the game itself mentions nothing about these stats and they can only be derived experientially. --Stratadrake 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (With move to a gaming wiki if any want it) I wouldn't call using statistics a copyvio, they're simple facts that can't be written any other way. That being said... simple stats about video game levels pretty much violate NOT a game guide, as do the personal opinions and suggestions. I don't really see any need to merge - there doesn't seem to be any info that would be useful, except in a guide sort of way. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

*Move to Wikibooks. I did contribute to this article, but let's be honest- it's more appropriate for a strategy guide than an encyclopedia, and a strategy guide is what Wikipedia is not. --Sonicrazy 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikibooks does not accept game guides anymore. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• On second thought, delete it. It has nowhere to go, and I've stopped working on it anyway. --Sonicrazy 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crabapplecove, sans the copy vios.SuperDT 07:54, 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 Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credit freeze

The intent of this article is to draw attention to one company, also nominated for deletion. All but one of the external links are to pages about or written by one of TrustedID's founders. Finally, this article was created on 2006-07-22 by User:Citim who also created the TrustedID article. Citim has made no contributions to WP other than creating these two entries and editing Suze Orman to add another link to TrustedID. Both articles are VSCA and should be deleted. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup this is a rather interesting topic. It just needs to be expanded in a non-baised way. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and useful JeffMurph 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While the TrustedID article should definitely go, this seems to be useful. Obviously failing WP:OR at the moment and the spam links to a non-notable company should go, but the article could be saved with a little attention. - Yomangani 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have learnt a lot reading these articles on credit freeze and so will a lot of other people. I agree that this is very interesting and useful. chrissy45 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rework and remove advertising Xenocidic 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid topic. AfD is not cleanup. Jacqui^★ 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid topic, useful in helping prevent identity theft. Yamaguchi先生 23:00, 25 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 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byrd Alzheimer's Center & Research Institute

This sounds like it was lifted from a website. First person viewpoint, some POV... TrackerTV 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This was lifted from Byrdinstitute.org, 4th paragraph down. This would be a speedy under A8, but this article is older than 48 hours old. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above AdamBiswanger1 18:24, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympus Twelve

Delete non-notable, unverifiable and likely original research. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is an uncencyclopedic list of non-notable characters in a minor fictional universe. It is unfortunate that the "prod" of this article was disputed, as this clearly should be deleted. Johntex\^talk 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  LOL "minor fictional universe". Kappa 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crabapplecove 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Circeus 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MrDolomite???mon, er -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is not original research. I took the time to check the nomination. What we have here is a article about Digimon (perhaps merge with that article?) A potiential source is this "encyclopedia" - That does seem to be unverifiable. Another option other than delete would be to move this to a gaming wiki. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While Megchan's original encyclopedia is a reliable source for the Japanese TCG, the exact origin of this concept, which is as far as I know not part oif any mainstream digimon series, is unknown. Digimon fan sites commonly copy data from each otehrs and this kind of tends to spread virally. Circeus 04:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:59, 26 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 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Price is Right (1976 Music Package)

If this isn't cruft I don't know what it. It is useless, unencylopedic and something nobody is likely to search for - and those are the reasons that are on the talk page@ Buckner 1986 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wonderful show, but a yearly list of the background music heard on it is way too granular. Maybe an overview article on the music used on the show and its international versions throught the year would be better, but would likely still be borderline for many. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Oh, the cruftastic humanity of it all. -- -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... as much as I love TPIR, this is way too crufty. WP:NOT the right place for these random tidbits of information... there are plenty of fan sites that do a better job than this. (For what it's worth, it's not so much about the music used in 1976 per se as it is about the music which was introduced then, since it's the same cues that they use on the show now.) --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Twigboy 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft, cruft, and more cruft. --DarkAudit 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete such an awesome list, though. lol AdamBiswanger1 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – More appropriate for a fan site, IMO [[Briguy52748 19:59, 26 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 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wikipedias by size

Without actually providing the sizes for the reader, this is unproven Original Research. It's also just plain goofy. Crabapplecove 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: At first glance I thought that said "list of Wikipedians by size"... --Kinu ^t/_c 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That would be a frightening list indeed (especially if it included pictures) -- Librarianofages 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's what I read first time too, and I thought, Unverifiable! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect into meta:List of Wikipedias. No need for duplicate, and meta site is more up to date.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Basically the wikipedia.org front page converted into an article, but with less info. Talk about a waste of time. Resolute 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, redundant to the Wikipedia front page, in a less useful form. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Piotr. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete as probably a redundant article MLA 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Piotrus on the assumption that cross-namespace redirects are appropriate. MLA 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the page is unique, it has links to the articles about the wikipedias. No other list has this. --° 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Category:Wikipedias by language fulfills that purpose. GassyGuy 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as (ironically) unencyclopedic material, and because (even if they're doable) I hate the idea of cross-space redirects. -- Kicking222 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Resolute. The only way to expand it would be to add useless trivia and what might be useful is redundant with Cat per GassyGuy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete snce there is no real encyclopaedic subject underlying this; plus, it will change daily (or not, in which case they are cobwebs). Plus it's almost by definiition WP:OR. Oh, and it's listcruft :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to meta:List of Wikipedias per Piotrus. Yamaguchi先生 23:01, 25 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 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulric Nisbet

The page does not assert the notability of its subject and has no citations. It has only 496 google hits. It seems to be a non-notable author who wrote a few books during his life time. Cowman109^Talk 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[5], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[6]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I only found 2 ghits. One was Wikipedia. Alphachimp ^talk 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For a topic this old, internet hits mean nothing, you have to go for print sources. It's easy to forget but for a long time there was no such thing as an Internet, and lots of stuff from the pre-Internet world has not yet been "nettified". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie for a more recent example with limited Google hits, but that's now shaping up as a very good article. Note: no vote (changed below) from me re this specific article for now. Phr (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I added this page. This author clearly meets the Wikipedia citerion for biographies: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". OK, he's a minor literary figure, but he was published, some of his archives are held in Cambridge University Archives, and he was reviewed in serious national newspapers ("The Onlie Begetter", TLS, 1936; "Spread no wings", Times 1937). Are we to purge Wikipedia of all minor writers and thinkers? That would remove one of its strengths - coverage of the unfashionable.Mark Nesbitt 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if verified, Per Mark Nesbitt -- Librarianofages 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if he's really the same one who wrote The Onlie Begetter. The article doesn't mention it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Mark Nesbitt. Also the number of google hits is not 2, Alphachimp, using less restrictive search terms, I got [501. (note google hits are not reason, by themselves to delete an article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually its just 35 hits if you use quotation marks[7]. (not that 500 is impressive) Bwithh 04:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENTGoogle hits mean 0, what are you talking about? -- Librarianofages 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's no need to shout. Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do mean something to different degrees depending on topic. It can especially useful when you're using Google Scholar and Google Books too. Bwithh 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep : Ok, sorry about the google hits, should have put the "'s as above. Since this is an interesting disscussion I ran some searches on WorldCat. Here is what I came up with: The onlie begetter and Spread no wings. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Mark Nesbitt seems to be working on his family tree, which is okay if the subjects are sufficiently encyclopedically notable minor thinkers and authors. Unfortunately I don't think this author is.
  • I found three entries in the Cambridge University library catalogue[8] (which is a legal deposit library[9], with minimal selectivity in what it archives - rather the library tries to catalogue all publications so its not a mark of distinction to be in the collection). The catalogue has a timeout feature, so direct links to searches won't work, but anyone can use the search function. I could not find "Spread no wings" in the catalogue.
  • Of the three I found - one title is a privately published book under a pseudonym, another is a book also printed under a pseudonym which had a print run of 250. The third is probably Nisbet's most notable book, The Onlie Begetter (1936), in which the author theorizes that the Mr. W.H. (the "only begetter" (i.e. patron, I assume) of the sonnets) to which an 1609 edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is dedicated is William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, rather than William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke who was and is considered to be the most likely candidate. This theory is probably why the book received attention in the Times Literary Supplement. (But we don't know how it was received).
  • However, I can't find any relevant hits which discuss a connection between Powis and Shakespeare (searching for "William Herbert" and "Powis" and "Shakespeare" and "sonnets") in Google[10], Google Scholar[11] or Google Books[12](the national biography hit discusses William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke - the Powis mention is elsewhere on the page and is unrelated and not the right Powis anyway. and the biography dates from 1911.).There are 4 hits for "Ulric Nesbit" likely related to Shakespeare on Google Books[13]. Zero hits on Google Scholar[14].
  • In comparison, there are a substantial number of hits (658 pages on Google Books; 157 hits on Google Scholar, 765 hits on regular Google) which discuss the relationship between Shakespeare and William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke however[15] [16][17]. The wikipedia article on Mr. WH also lists 5 other persons aside from Pembroke who have been discussed as likely candidates for the mystery Mr. WH. - but does not include Powis.
  • All this leads me to believe that while Ulric Nesbit's WH theory about Powis may have made a minor splash at the time, he has had little or no lasting impact on the Shakespeare scholarship, even in his own lifetime. I think Ulric's theory should be mentioned in the Mr. WH article, but he is not notable enough of a scholar for his own article Bwithh 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion. JeffMurph 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh Originalbigj 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Mulling it over if this is the author of The Onlie Begetter (but if so, why isn't that in the article?) there's multiple hits for Ulric Nisbet on bookfinder.com. The Onlie Begetter was published by Longmans in 1936 and republished by Haskell House in 1970 and 1982; that there were enough readers to keep it marketable for that long is evidence of minor notability (unless Haskell House is a vanity press--I have a slight suspicion of that but haven't checked it out). However, there's also a 2006 print-on-demand edition which I'll guess is connected to Mark Nesbitt; if it is, then the article has a tinge of WP:SPAM to add to the WP:VAIN already evident. Phr (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Haskell House seems to be a small specialist publisher dedicated to reprints of "scarce scholarly books".[18]. Now known as MSG-Haskell House[19]. Can't find website for the company Bwithh 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sigh, no I'm no relation to him and have no connection with him. I was a committed contributor to Wikipedia who likes to release to the public domain pieces of research that I do for other purposes, if they seem to fall within its scope...Mark Nesbitt 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on Bwitth's link to MSG-Haskell which looks a legit press (at least these days). ("Scarce scholarly books" is actually what sounded to me like "vanity"). If The Onlie Begetter stayed in print for 46 years in the pre-POD era, that's enough notability for something like this. Mark, if the article stays around, it would be good if you could update it with something about the book. (added:) Also, thanks for the clarification. Phr (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on the above comments. 496 google hits is fairly decent for a subject who died a decade before the internet became commercially viable. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You're not parsing your google search correctly. There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[20], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[21]. Bwithh 18:46, 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 speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shitfit U.S.

Non-notable bandcruft, vanity, and a great deal of patent nonsense. Crabapplecove 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Could almost be Speedy A7. Extreme POW, calling fans unnapretiative, saying where everyone is now, no sources at all. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified WP:V & it is not clear if it reaches notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC. As per Royalguard11 it could almost be speedy deleted (CSD A7).--blue520 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. Also as nonsense and attack. --DarkAudit 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete indeed. Not only bandcruft, but pointlessly inflammatory (ref to "catching homosexuality from a toilet seat"). --Pagana 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mostly nonsense, definitely nonnotable. NawlinWiki 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles can be speedy deleted, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 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. Rje 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesneco Torch, The

Non notable publication. No Google hits. There seems to be some little notability assertions (organizing 1st Organizational Assembly, 1st Torch Cup Debate, etc), enough to prevent a CSD:A7, but not for AFD. ReyBrujo 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or move to West Negros College (WNC) Confirm the lack of seach engine hits, but this is a university newspaper, and it contians infomation about the college as well. link to the university, for anyone who is interested. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, it's a university newspaper- shouldn't it get more than ZERO Google hits? Not even one? -- Kicking222 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete: Yeah you do have a point, looking in the university's webpage agian, which is here, does brings up 2 hits for the term. None that I can tell are actually about the magazine. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this one or merge as per Eagle above. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete current article. Redirect WP:NN article name Wesneco Torch, The to West Negros College, which does appear to be WP:N. Content can be moved to a section there. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep You don't delete a publication by an African American College. The purpose of an encyclopeida with all the aspirations of Wikipedia is to perserve and promote inforamtion. I mean shit who is running this thing? There are already 10,000s of people a groups pissed off by their treatment at the hands of Wikipedia, are you really going to delete the small references to an African American College Journal? Are you really stupid enough to call it non-notable. Your just openings the door to claims of rascism. Wikipedia has a high profile, you should all be more professional than that, things like this make the news and how the hell are you going to defend a massive Klingon language section when you delete this. Duh. Just leave it, if anyone wants to search on Wesneco Torch they can get the hit. --Rhooker1236 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We delete lots of things. It is the assertion that we should keep an article because of the racial backgrounds of the subject that is racist. Please argue per our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please explain how an encyclopaedia article on this publication can satisfy our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research criteria. The article cites no sources. Please cite some secondary sources, independent of the newspaper itself, that discuss this newspaper and that therefore can be used to write a verifiable, non-primary source, encyclopaedia article about it. Uncle G 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "I mean shit who is running this thing?" That would be Jimbo Wales. - CheNuevara 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources, and in fact not only can I find no sources on this newspaper that are independent of the newspaper itself, I can find no sources at all. This article is unverifiable. Even were it to be verified that the newspaper existed, a previously unpublished history of the newspaper would be original research. Already published sources that give that history are required. Delete. Uncle G 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• According to AfD, Wikipedia is racist, fascist, communist, anarchist, anti-American, elitist, and generally bad. In light of this, I ... still say delete as unverifiable. - CheNuevara 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and fix. 88.218.55.227 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. I can't find anything about it -- not even evidence that it exists. In contrast, I can easily find enough information to verify that the Klingon language exists. --Carnildo 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V and likely WP:VAIN. WilyD 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete It fails WP:V, and pretty much any other reasoning for keeping/deleting a page is immaterial if none of the page's info can be verified. -- Kicking222 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yep, fails WP:V and everything else said above --JRA WestyQld2 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:58, 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 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Airs

Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — non-notable, owning a small business and being involved with the chamber of commerce is insufficient notability for WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete could be a poster child for WP:BIO and/or WP:VANITY. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- though I'm familiar with Airs, when I saw this article I wondered whether she was notable enough, and I think she's probably not, absent further information (especially given that Grand Opening went under rather than becoming something bigger). Catamorphism 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Really, not even close. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although I do support the deletion of this article, doesn't it meet the criteria for speedy deletion as a biography of a non-notable person? --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment She seems non-notable from the article, especially the poor sourcing (owned an adult shop, now out of business, and joined some organizations) but I am curious about the Playboy mention. She apparently was the subject of a one-hour HBO special[22] (source is crappy gossip-like column on Boston.com) and the amateur show is mentioned in Daily Dig[23]. There is more... it seems she is at least somewhat notable. I am wondering if a cleanup might not be more appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm neutral on whether this stays or goes, but I wanted to clarify: her store isn't out of business. At the beginning of 2006 she shifted it to online-only. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 25 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 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abune Yosef

The population estimates released by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia has no listing for any settlement with this name in the country. However, there is mountain by that name, one of the 10 or 20 tallest in Ethiopia, located in the northern Amhara Region. Lastly, according to my map Mt. Abuna Yosef is 390 km north of Addis Ababa, not 320 km. Once all of the mistakes are removed from this article, there's nothing left to salvage. This should probably be considered a speedy delete, except I can't figure out a suitable category to justify this act. llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment Um, you could fix the mistakes instead of removing them. Then you would have something to salvage. Just a thought. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, if I take out all of the mistakes, there won't be anything left; & is it simpler to move an empty article -- or delete it & write an entirely new one? (I'm not trying to be snide here; I would apply be bold here & just delete the article & write an entirely new one were it not that "being bold" has acquired a bad reputation recently.) -- llywrch 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and correct. Seems simplest to just turn this into an article about the mountain. Dlyons493 Talk 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Even if it is corrected from town to mountain, it doesn't make it. The 10th-20th tallest mountain in a country that isn't known for mountains just isn't notable. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article and let llywrch write the real one about the mountain. But that article should be kept. We have articles on dozens of mountains and hills in England, and Ethiopia is known for its mountains and highlands. (Modified comment) up+land 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or just overwrite with good data. Ethiopia is known for highlands; it is part of why it was never conquered by the Moslem expansion (I don't know the proper name) and never colonized by European powers during the Scramble for Africa. GRBerry 02:21, 26 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, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choad

• This has been transwikied, any reasons for it to stay here? (No more bongos 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

• Delete not a known slang. should keep it in wiktionary itself. --Ageo020 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as dick def. It lists a definition and other dictionary-type information and I don't think it could expand to include more. However, saying this is not known slang is not true, as it is in wide use, although the width of its use may be greater than the length of time it's been common. GassyGuy 07:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree it's a dickdef Dlyons493 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TedE 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• It'll be sad to see this article go. Believe it or not, choad is a rather important concept amongst the younger crowd, and if they can't come to Wikipedia for an explanation, they'll just end up on some crappy slang website. We wrote an article on Tag (game), I think we can manage choad. --Cyde Weys 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an article about a thing, a children's game. The thing that an article this title would be about is already discussed by the article under its English language name of penis. And people who come to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it is a dictionary are presented with MediaWiki:Noarticletext, which encourages them to search Wiktionary, whereupon they will find wikt:choad, which is well on the way to being a proper dictionary article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How about just redirect to Penis then? --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Samir धर्म 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How is this India-related? It's only India-related in the sense that Indians have penises too. --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's India-related inasmuch as there's a folk etymology for this word that has it supposedly derived from Hindi. Wiktionarians have discussed this in detail (Wiktionary being the place where etymologies of words are researched, discussed, and written about). See wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • See Oxford Hindi-English dictionary (R. S. McGregor, Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (May 22, 1997), ISBN 019864339X) on the subject, or even Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where Amrish Puri uses the hindi word with aplomb, much to the chagrin of Indian parents everywhere. It's one of the filthiest hindi words and the translation is quite coincidental. That's why it's related to India related deletions -- Samir धर्म 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What that dictionary says has been analyzed in depth and found not to support the folk etymology. Again I refer you to wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
          • My comment was directed at Clyde. I'm not commenting on what the etymology is, but just saying that there's enough to suggest that it should be added to the list of India related deletions. As an aside, I also see no analysis in depth on the wiktionary page, just commentary from one user who doesn't speak the language. Agree that it's not enough to definitively support any theory on etymology -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wiktionary I thought the word was Spanish but yeah, it's a dickdef I was familiar with. Appears a few times in Love and Rockets (comics) if I remember correctly. Phr (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please expend some effort in AFD discussions. Please actually check Wiktionary before nominating something to be transwikified. Wiktionary already has an article on this word, and indeed had it 6 months before Wikipedia had this article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's already in Wiktionary as stated in the nom. I mean that's the right place for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Phr (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not what "Wiktionary" means. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. Uncle G 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, although this word was commonplace in my highschool days, and we had a friend we called "the choadster". I don't know why... AdamBiswanger1 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn dictionary entry. --Tim1988 ^talk 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not Urbandictionary.com. Jimbo68 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary More of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. I don't think it should be deleted because it is a known slang (has been used in some TV programs) it's just not used too often. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as already present in Wiktionary and not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:12, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Zamojc

Non-notable commissioner of public works for Region of Peel in Ontario JChap (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Though I'm sure the Affiliated Brotherhood of Public Works Commissioners Union may object. :)  -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think that being Commissioner of Public Works by itself meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Delete vote also extends to the redirect Mitch Zamojc, Commissioner of Public Works, which violates Wikipedia convention. Also check out Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario, as part of possible walled garden. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This very brief summary allows the linking and expanding to other areas, such as the Association of Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario, allows the linking to other new areas for Wiki such as Ontario Clean Water Agency and so on. The man is winning North America Wide top 10 Awards, is Chair of governing boards that serve Ten Million people. Propagation of knowledge and ability to link and expand to make new connections and nodes of other articles are important features available only with Wiki and one of the main advantages of an on-line encyclopdia. Wiki needs to link up to other areas and the Top Level Award winning people in Public Sector Administration should be part of the scope in the spirit of expanding Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of medium-ranking civil servants/public officials. People can start their own separate MandarinWiki if they want to wiki-catalogue the labyrinth corridors of medium-level governmental power Bwithh 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Commissioners" at top level highest ranking civil servants that answer only to an elected council. They are appointed by elected representatives and cannot be fired from their jobs with cause ro without cause like other employees. They do not reach these possition by atrition and are equivalent to Chief of Staff of Government. They have more power than elected officials and are usually in power for life. These possitions should be properly categorised and Wiki Categorized as the of top escelonce of power.
• Delete Non notable civil servants don't make a wikipedia article. --Ageo020 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Bwithh. --Metropolitan90 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A public works commissioner is not an encyclopediac position. Claims of notability are made, but no outside sources provided. --DarkAudit 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OzLawyer 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment some parts of the article are word-for-word copies from http://www.peelregion.ca/exec-office/mitch-bio.htm --DarkAudit 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- a guy with a management job. Even CEOs have to meet criteria to be included, and this is no CEO. --Gary Will 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment made some significant additions and expanded to link to new articles created and pending. I have other material I am putting together if you all give me half a chance to put articles together.WikiWoo 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete manifestly fails WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 26 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. Nandesuka 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of international Tartan Day celebrations

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this list is (it even says it is). The list was apparently split off from the Tartan Day article, but that might not have been the right thing to do. Suggesting deletion: yes, it's a notable holiday, but the main article has enough information already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge back into Tartan Day. -<small>(<font color="blue">t</font>|<font color="red">c|<font color="gray">e</font></small> 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article. Merge what's valid into main. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a bunch of links without giving any info on the celebrations held in the respective countries. I don't think it should even be merged into the Tartan article.--Ageo020 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's useful but not Wikipedia material, do not merge, there's too many links for one article. I'd suggest the article creator create a webpage with these links then link to it in Tartan Day. Lurker 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge back into Tartan Day. Not sure if WP:POVFORK really applies here. Medtopic 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge back into Tartan Day -- but not as a list of links; use the links to source a paragraph about the celebration of the day. Jacqui^★ 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable list. --Guinnog 17:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I created the article as a way of getting the links out of the main article. I should have just deleted them at the time. Sorry. --Guinnog 14:32, 29 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 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter baxter, slamdance

Non-notable. Naconkantari 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO and definitely reads WP:VAIN. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, possible WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Ageo020 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per slamdancing nom. SynergeticMaggot 06:38, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Call it Magic

Supposedly an upcoming Fox reality series. No relevant search results except Wiki and mirrors. Author (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) also created a bunch of articles on upcoming Disney series which have been Prodded, but this one already was Prodded, so it needs AFD. I've never heard of a "planned" series with 30 episodes in the can, and no press. Likely hoax. At the very least unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as crystal balling, possibly a hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, some call it crystal-balling, some call it a hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -Bordello 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I Call it Nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might be more willing to believe it if there was any information. Besides, what major network would air an episode called "WTF"? --Transfinite 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some call it crystal balling... in WP:NOT list form! -- Steel 23:40, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harpies in market-driven culture

Article was created by a user who was clearing out a trivia section from Harpy and didn't write the material. He has no attachment to the article and considers it "drivel" as he indicated upon discussing the prod which was removed by a different user. As I stated in the prod, article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and a synthesis of data that results in original Research.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The title could be changed to Harpies in Popular culture instead of the above title. Maybe merge it into the Harpy article itself--Ageo020 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's where the material originally resided. It was removed from there as inappropriate by the article creator (see Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since the title is WP:OR and there's not much evidence the article is anything else. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, it's WP:OR Lurker 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. BigE1977 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• rofl... what a name. I thought for a minute it would be an article about those harridans who line-drive you out of the way at linen sales. Um, Delete ... sheesh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and expand Harpy entry The article is pointless and should be deleted. For the record - take note of the awful writing style. However I think there is some use in expanding on the use of Harpies in modern culture in the main entry, as long as its not just another list.Adam Slack 23:18, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imyst, Inc., Imyst, Imyst mystery shopping

Appears to fail WP:CORP. ghits: [24]. Alexa for site 904,210. — NMChico24 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP.--blue520 05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. I hate it when we need to do this to delete ex-prodded spam. Picaroon9288 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:37, 25 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 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IFSZ

Article has been around for a while and has not conformed to WP:WEB

Reasons for failing WP:WEB

1. No other sources other than information from IFSZ(No News Articles, Other Web Sites, ect)

2. No Inpedenant award given.

3. Has not been distributed via a site that is both well known and independent of the creators Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising article. the main article InvisionFree Network is enough--Ageo020 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, reads like poorly written WP:VSCA. WP:NOT a place to talk about how your web forum is the best, especially when it's hosted on Invision... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I removed the "staff members" and "elite membership" sections which clearly did not belong in an encyclopedia, but what's left looks like some quotations from a web forum, not an encyclopedia article about it, and there are WP:WEB problems in any event. --Metropolitan90 06:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Since it fails WP:WEB, WP:VSCA, and WP:NOT I won't even bother mentioning that it's a poorly written fluff piece. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above, though the first thing I thought of was WP is not a web hosting/blog especially in light of this line "We have set up the ability for our dedicated members* to have their very own ifsz.com email address". — MrDolomite | Talk 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dont Delete I am going to fully re-write this article, I do not believe it should be deleted. I know this site. I have the original article saved, just incase you need it. (Did it. Too late though. I'll do some more later) - User: Iced Kola

Comment I know this site as well (I have been a member since 2003) and the Article Totally fails WP:WEB, it is Nothing against the IFSZ but has to do with Notability. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dispite the redo this article still Fails all WP:WEB Criteria. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:42, 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 speedily deleted by Grutness. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-rock 1998 dj scratch

Sounds like a first-person view. I messed up the formatting, but this is NN and speedy! TrackerTV 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per nom--Nosmik 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not establish notability (and yes, I use to listen to K-Rock before it became Free FM but simply stating he was a DJ there does not establish notability).--Jersey Devil 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I found this doing Random Article repeatedly. -TrackerTV 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like personal ad: "Ive been looking for him ever since." Fan-1967 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1, I'll go out on a limb and say "no context" on this one. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• speedy. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • correction - speedied. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walled garden (wiki)

self-referential, move to meta

• Transwiki to meta or maybe to project space. Phr (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a nomination. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and the best way you can help AfD be the Best AfD It Can Be (yeehaw!) is to actually give reasons for your nomination, and refrain from treating it like a vote, and straighten your tie, this isn't high school. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep since it's a term which is thrown around a bit here, it might help to have an explanation handy domestically, rather than at another wiki. BigHaz 10:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The place for handy explanations of internal jargon, like (say) Geogre's Law, is Wikipedia:Glossary, not the main namespace. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that meta is still a wikimedia project and we can wikilink to it without needing an external link; e.g., m:exopedianism. In fact "[[m:walled garden]]" is less typing, and maybe more clearly labels the concept, than "[[walled garden (wiki)|walled garden]]">. Phr (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Meta is not an appropriate place for this. "Walled Garden" here refers to wikis, not Wikipedia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That said, Uncle G's right: "it would be handy to have this in a glossary" is not a good reason for keeping the article around. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to project space. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Guy! Have you actually read the article? You were on my C-list, dude! (sorry) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I have (and linked it occasionally). The encyclopaedic content seems to me to be functionally equivalent to Walled garden (media). There are really two things going on in one article, one describing linked and exclusively self-referential articles, the other being the usage described at ~(media). What is wrong with advocating move? That said, having it in the glossary would be satisfactory I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not truly self-referential; something like this could also be an article in the Encyclopedia Galactica. --Lambiam^Talk 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• The nomination reason is bunk: this is not in any way self-referential. There are plenty of websites, and even wikis, that aren't Wikipedia, so an article discussing a phenomenon on certain websites (particularly wikis) is entirely appropriate. There's no good reason to delete this thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll say again: Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet. Neither meta nor project space have anything to do with wikis that aren't Wikipedia, and nor should they — however, there's an argument that some aspects of wiki culture should be discussed in main article space. Please realise this. Once you have become fully Enlightened on the sheer number of wikis that aren't Wikipedia (search Google, if need be), feel free to come back and talk about "notability" and "encyclopaedic". And when you do, please tell us why you didn't bother to mention all this in your nomination. Nominations are the core of any AfD discussion, and they need to be good. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• We are still required to adhere to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And whilst I agree that the reason for deletion given in the nomination is invalid, the original research problem is a valid one. I've looked, and whilst I can find sources that discuss walled garden (media) and (of course) walled gardens, I can find nothing that discusses the wiki-specific concept that is propounded in this article. This article appears to be original research, the promulgation of a new, wiki-specific, concept that hasn't gained traction in the world at large. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the PPR link at the bottom there? æ² ✆ 2006-07-24t14:29z
    • That isn't evidence that the concept has gained traction in the world at large. Such evidence would other sources dealing with the subject, independently written by other people. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• All three articles on things called "walled gardens" are pretty small and pretty similar. I think they could benefit from all being merged into the one article, and would be willing to do this later. There is still the issue of nothing being sourced, but so long as we can agree (I know the bits I'm familiar with are unobjectionable, and Uncle G's a fairly cluey chap too, so he could look over it as well) that it's all true, we could merge the content together and bung a "need references" sign in. How would that sit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.

    Whilst in the wiki world there may be a concept of a set of self-contained pages that are cordoned off from the rest of the project (Indeed, they do this very thing at Wikinews.), I have found no independent secondary source material that addresses that. I haven't found any source material for the concept in this article. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia namespace to comply with WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its a worthwhile entry, and it talks about wikis in general not wikipedia. It definately needs sources to back it up, but the best way to achieve that is to keep it until someone can find sources for it.Adam Slack 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Walled garden (media); I heard of this concept before I ever heard of Wikipedia. Not a self-ref, but I'm at a loss for how to source it without referring to another wiki. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to WP namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't move to wikipedia:namespace or eta because it is not a wikipedia or even wikimedia specific concept, it s a wiki secific concept. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 03:59, 30 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Joseph

WP:BIO, WP:NN chef ... I am AfDing this at the suggestion of another editor (See edit history for details) ... deprodded twice DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of sources. The article doesn't name any of the restaurants she owns or cookbooks she has written, which would be helpful in verifying this information. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Metropolitan90 Spartaz 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for a star chef, I could find very little of her through Google, and after having written 6 best-selling cookbooks, I can't find any cookbooks for an Allison Joseph on Amazon.
• Delete unless sources regarding the "best-selling cookbooks" are added right quick. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Willing to reconsider if references are provided. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 25 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Black Mesa

This is a modification for Half Life 2 which has not been released yet, and therefore could not have achieved any sort of notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability StukaAce 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete another unreleased HL mod? Basically the article just lists a bunch of people working on it. DrunkenSmurf 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with with Drunkensmurf -- Whpq 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, article on a completely non-notable mod, I shall strike down upon thee with great vengeance and fuuuuuuuuuurious anger! Seriously, it doesn't get more insignificant than this. -- Kicking222 21:58, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varieties of capitalism

• POV essay abakharev 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we have a better article on capitalism, we don't need this POV version. This also looks like someone's term paper. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being an essay (thus WP:OR applies) and probably crossing the POV barrier too. BigHaz 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, it is my article. As an article on Varieties of Capitalism did not exist and the concept by Hall and Soskice is important in the social sciences I thought I'd add it. Now if for some reason it might not be good that is obviously ok and for you to judge, but I yet do think that the article might be interesting for people that work in this line of social sciences research. Mulgul
• Delete I'm afraid it falls under the realm of Original research. Thanks for your contributions, though. AdamBiswanger1 20:41, 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.

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Ebeling

Non-notable singer. Extremly POV. I think we might have speedied it once before. -Royalguard11^Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete per nom. -Royalguard11^Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You know, if you actually got nominated for a grammy, I would have expected the top google page result for your acomplishment to be mentioned somewhere other than Myspace, but maybe that's just me. Irongargoyle 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It was speedied as db-empty, but AMG and google turn up nothing.--Chaser T 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete If this enrty was ever added before, it wasn't by me Rodney Libby, IT Director for Holiday Inn Southfield, His name was spelt wrong on Kid Rocks page and had an empty link. I can try and get more information, please let me know thanks

what is extreemly POV? Here is a single page referencing the Grammy Nomination... http://www.deanguitars.com/jon_kott.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

and another

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2826435/a/Para+Siempre.htm

http://cdreviewsonline.com/june2006.htm

http://news.surfwax.com/music/archives/Smashing_Pumpkins.html

ALL 43rd annual grammy nominees:

http://www.salsaweb.com/music/articles/43rd_annual_grammy_nominees.htm

Bob (Robert) Kaeding was an aka for Bob Ebeling:

http://compras.univision.com/Downtown-CDs_stcVVproductId2935930VVcatId403860VVviewprod.htm

• Comment Should we count that as spamming the AfD? -Royalguard11^Talk 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much information for you to handle? What is your affiliation with Wikipedia & The GNU Free Documentation License Entities(GFDL) Royalguard11? In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors?

• Comment These links seem to verify the claims, but I don't know if we should include producers and engineers. I'm ignorant about their notability in the music world, so perhaps a regular editor to music articles can advise. Unrelated to the merits of keeping, I'm quite annoyed that this IP apparently tried to impersonate me by copying my sig. This may have been an accident, but it doesn't look that way. If it was intentional, that is very uncool.--Chaser T 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As for the POV, which I missed, the whole article reads like a praise of the subject. If it is kept for some reason, then it needs to be seriously rw. -Royalguard11^Talk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will work on a listing much like other bio listings. Thanks for your help.

Rodney Libby (user:Rodnuts)

• Delete. Apparently Rob Ebeling (not credited as Bob) was one of 11 recording engineers/mixers who was credited under the Grammy nomination for Album of the Year for Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP (along with Eminem as artist and five producers including Eminem) [25]. That's an accomplishment, but I don't know that he necessarily qualifies under WP:MUSIC by being one of eleven people receiving a tertiary nomination for a Grammy. If the article gets a significant rewrite before the AfD is over, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The grammy nomination was a very very smal portion of this individuals accomplishments. --69.33.172.2 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete So you are saying that the guy that recorded Eminem and Dido's "Stan" is worthless to this culture? What about the guy who taught Kid Rock what rock is. What about the guy who completely produced Tantric, Remy Zero, Rufus Wainwright, Dead Meadow, etc..... --69.33.172.2 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (RODNUTS)
  • Please stop putting your recommendations in boldface. While AfD is not a vote, you have already stated your boldface recommendation for this article. Nobody has said Ebeling was worthless to this culture. Furthermore, you currently have more in this article about Ebeling's work with Ethan Daniel Davidson than his work with Eminem. The Grammy nomination may be a small part of Ebeling's work but that is no reason not to explain what he was nominated for. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add any info you find, I am trying to get everything I can. I thought this was a team effort?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

• WP is a team effort, but people understandably don't want to put effort into something that they think should be deleted, which I still do because of notability concerns, not to mention that none of this is verified, which is required by a core policy. Sorry.--Chaser T 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and in the unlikely chance it isn't deleted, a complete re-write is needed. Stev0 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ...the bias is obvious: A musical prodigy at age 6, Ebeling has been displaying natural talent ever since. Eventually mastering nearly any namable instrument, he became an indispensable part of hundreds of studio recordings, live acts, and a looming figure behind the scenes of uncountable musical entities. Not only that, the article is poorly written and formatted terribly.Gregmitch 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wholly unsourced. BlueValour 21:56, 29 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. DS 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boirpy

Speedy tag removed by anonymous user. Unsourced neologism at best, patent nonsense at worst. 0 google hits for supposed internet slang. "One who is bored and has nothing to do"? Hmmm... :-) Irongargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as something made up by someone who was bored, tired, and/or sleepy one day. Fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. I don't think it quite squeezes in as patent nonsense (if only there was a mention of otters with briefcases). Yomangani 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. In any case wikipedia isn't a dictionary. -Royalguard11^Talk 17:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think it fits under the "patent nonsense" category but it definitely does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:43, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blasian Actors

Short list with entries already covered in List of Blasians. Crumbsucker 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated for same reason:

• List of Blasian musicians

• Delete both, unnecessary lists. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Punkmorten 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Landolitan 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete List of blasians is enough --Ageo020 23:10, 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.

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

The result was delete, speedily, because Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement. It can't be merged ("delete and merge" is impossible even if this were GFDL text, but anyway...) due to the license issues. Dead, anyway.--SB | T 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Kahless

This page has been lifted from Memory Alpha where it should have stayed as it's not notable in the least. Philip Stevens 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There must be limits to how much of this crufty stuff is permitted in wikipedia when there is already another entire wiki devoted to ST. It seems to have been a significant plot device in another episode, so perhaps some of the contents from the MemoryAlpha page can be used there when that page is created.--Chaser T 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not Memory Alpha. It's there, we don't need it here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge Delete Artilce and merge whatever can be salvaged to the Klingon Article Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. Nothing can be merged - Memory Alpha's copyright restrictions are incompatible with WP. BigDT 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - I have blanked the article and tagged it with {{copyvio}} so that mirrors will not pick up on it. BigDT 19:14, 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.

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProgArchives

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I do not see any problem with this. This is not just a forum, it's an authorative website and one of the best sources for progressive rock (and metal) on the web. We are always pleased to make the necessary changes and expand on this entry. Also, we have removed a lot of the original content since the original deletion status was applied, because we deemed it trivial and unnecessary. >>> I've made further changes and the entry now sits with me more comfortably. I've also noticed other websites/forums have wiki entries here >>> I'm not sure what kind of sources Wine Guy expects us to use... surely the website itself is proof enough? All the information contained in the article can be found on the website itself. Therefore I do not see any issues here. If Wine Guy (or anyone else for that matter) can confirm to me what kind of sources we are supposed to be using, I will be happy to add them >>> Tellier-Craig, as far as I can tell, has also not made any other contributions to wikipedia, besides his/her comment, so why has their comment not been commented on, like the others? Just curious. --Geck0 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Apart from I dont see any problem, this is one of the most important website for progressive rock. As google already cited is as the first result if "progressive rock" is searched. Imoeng 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to have some of the ad-centric content cleaned up, but this is a very useful site for information about progressive bands, albums, and sub-genre definitions. The reviews and band bios are pretty extensive and that part of the site is a pro-bono service of the members, not unlike Wikipedia itself.Sheriff Bob Moore 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sheriff Bob Moore (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete Seems like an advert for a website. If people want information on ProgArchives, they can go directly to its website. JeffMurph 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a member of that forum and that site. As wonderful as the site is, this entry here lacks.I find the Wikipedia entry of the Archives kinda sloppy and uninteresting. A generalization that pretty much serves to nothing.Very short, simple background. Section "Community" goes very casual, explaining general things. About the collaborators, decent stuff, still rudimentary. Features that express details (something not really important, in my opinion, of a view over the concept of Prog Archives. Miscellaneous things that serve the same thing. In my opinion, not the best way to highlight, within the archives of this site, the Progressive Rock website, forum, concept etc. >>> I see modifications were made, just want to add to my opinion, that there is already an extensive definition of "Progressive Rock", the one given here is half-copied (first paragraph), half easy interpretation. Some sub-genres go repeated for the second time. Also, "Community" section and "The Forum" section are practically the same thing. Tellier-Craig 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete generic web forum. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Typical forum vanity, as usual no reliable sources or evidence of media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Listerin 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tellier-Craig. -Royalguard11^Talk 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: This site is the best reference that we have in the net to keep alive one of the most artistic expressions of Rock music. 200.4.234.111 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 200.4.234.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep Whoever said it's a generic forum got to be kidding. The forum is just a small part of the site, I mean, if there are entries on sites like Ebaumsworld or Something Awful who also have extencive forums along with regular content, PA must stay. Plus it's an extencive informatione resource, not just an entertainment site. -The Miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. This article makes no reference to independent (third-party) reliable sources, and until it does, it fails WP:V and must go. --Wine Guy Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep Come on, the fact that we don't appear in the news shouldn't ve a reason to delete. We're not advertising anything, we're just prog rock enthusiasts promoting music through this wonderful resource, a completely non-commercian information database. The owners of the site have nothing to do with this article, it is NOT an advert and not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. Non-notable forum. *drew 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I would probably be willing to concede notability ... but there isn't a single citation in the article. Thus, it is presumed to be origina research. BigDT 00:33, 30 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 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulahla

I couldn't find any evidence that this is anything more than a couple of wild and crazy guys messing around in their local supermarket car park. --Spondoolicks 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Silly but not particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete* This sport is well known and played frequently at the University of Western Ontario. It has been widely discussed (not in the most favourably of lights) in the student-run paper The Western Standard, which unfortunately is only available in printed form. Will attempt to scan archived articles when I return to Western come September. - JeffTaytay (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
• Delete. If it is real it can be recreated as an encyclopedic article but this reeks of WP:NFT: eccentric Otis, 84th Lord of Seaton and his courtiers Fraser Iggbert Macdonald and... and is WP:OR. Yomangani 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dont DeleteThis is a work in progress and obviously lacks the professionalism and full citations of a finished article, but it is based on a real sport and its history has been documented in multiple student papers at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Huron and Brescia colleges. A probationary time to complete the article is well deserved. --SteveKourash (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
• Weak Delete. There appear to be a couple of mentions of the game, such as down the bottom of this page and in a few other places, but my Google-fu gives no substantial coverage of this sport in what one might refer to as non-trivial publications. Mostly they're Wiki mirrors and "alternate uses of shopping cart" bits. I don't think it quite gets to verifiable levels of notability, though. Tony Fox (speak) 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --G0zer 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dont Delete this sport is gaining popularity in southwestern ontario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliasn (talk • contribs) .
• Don't Delete* As a student at the university of western ontario I can attest to the sport's popularity, however I think that some liberties have been taken with the content of the artcile. It can be stripped down to a bare-bones article and be encyclopedic. User:costellofaso
• Delete not notable, the claims of many an unregistered UWO student notwithstanding. Raggaga 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for an article. Monkey Brain_(talk) 22:56, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Telco

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a notable wireless Internet project. I'm going to start looking for newspaper articles, I've seen it get a lot of coverage. --Liface 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just referenced the article. Please go back and look at it again. --Liface 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Also note that the user who put this up for deletion has just been blocked from Wikipedia. --Liface 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to get rid of a well-cited article, it makes a claim to notability, and provides useful information to the reader. --tjstrf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say keep, although I'm not quite up-to-date with en.wp's rules of the day. Even if the website is less notable today than it was when I started this article in May 2001, Personal Telco was an important part of an important "free wi-fi movement" around the turn of the millennium. If the article is deleted, Personal Telco should at least have a section in the broader article about this wireless community network movement. Several similar articles could be coalesced (sp?) into that one. Perhaps my old text from Everything2 could also be used for this? --LA2 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. PersonalTelco's notability is that it is an important part of Portland's high-tech industry/community, as well as having influence in the larger Free WiFi movement. The article probably could emphasise this more, but even as it currently reads this article explains why the subject is notable. Liface has done a good job of providing cites for this article, but if there are any further doubts, I'd be happpy to sift thru my PTP maillist archive & pull out more references: I expect PTP has been written up several dozen times by the press since its incorporation 5 years ago. -- llywrch 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Notability has been asserted. --Peephole 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While an org, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. There are many Wi-Fi networks up and running. Including a generic article that includes all of these some what mentionable ones is a better way to go in my mind. Otherwise a lot of these will deserve articles. The same is true for the multiple mesh networks that the various companies are installing. Vegaswikian 23:25, 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 keep. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galbijim Wiki

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment: Watching the List of wikis page I suspected there might be a VfD on this one eventually as well, and since I wrote the article in the first place I'm going to stay neutral on the vote. The site is to Korean articles on Wikipedia as Wookieepedia is to those on Star Wars, meaning that anything that would be of too much detail here can still be written over there, and the two aid each other in that way. That being said, that in and of itself may not make the article notable so I'm going to just let the vote go according to everyone else's wishes. If it is deleted though there should still be a clear limit for when it would become notable in the future. Should there be a few other blog entries, newspaper articles, if so what kind of newspapers and would those in Korean be acceptable, etc. The Wookieepedia article for example also only has a single blog entry as an external link, but its sheer article count seems to have kept it from deletion. Mithridates 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep - I personally don't see any reason to delete it. A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized. It has almost 4,000 articles all related to Korea. I have found a lot of the information there useful. I think it's notable enough to merit its own article. However; maybe should be reduced to stub status, and as the website grows, and as time pasess, it could be expanded further. Merkurix 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized" lots of them have been deleted, kamelopedia, uncyclopedia of stupid, homestarrunner, something based on star wars, and they've even deleted ones with actual notable newspaper sources in them because people demanded the use of multiple newspaper sources. Hardvice 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Note that the nominator is a sock puppet of the above user (and this user Hardvice has since been permanently blocked) (repeating what Hipocrite said above). See User:FurryiamIAM and [26]. -- KittySaturn 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe the person who nominated the article is wrong. The above article does meet noteablity and has recieved The Best 43 Blogs Award [27] for best Wiki blog. In addition, the article has high mention though sites like Dave's ESL Cafe. There is lots of useful information for expats (those who live in Korea). Also it's worth mentioning that FurryiamIAM nominated upwards of ten pages for deletion in one day and he/she has very little in the way of edit history. Davidpdx 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and bloggy source is irrelevant to wikipedia. Anomo 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a good resource and was mentioned on the Marmot's Hole the other day. Tortfeasor 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is indeed a bit short of the Wikipedia's standards, but it is my opinion that anyone who have had a read through it will agree that it is a detailed wiki about Korea, and the article has potential for expansion. I would also like to draw attention to what Davidpdx said above and

• comment that the nominator, FurryiamIAM is one whose edits consist roughly of: (1) edits about nominating articles for deletion and (2) making rapid empty edits to articles without adding or deleting any content (all of his edits to articles are such useless ones), disrupting Wikipedia. -- KittySaturn 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, looks like the nominator has just been blocked for being a sock of User:Hardvice and making multiple meaningless edits to rack up the edit count. Mithridates 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I half expected the block by the look of his edits, even if he wasn't a sock puppet... -- KittySaturn 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Like porn stars, wikis don't yet have clear guidelines for establishing notability other than an uneven record at AfD, so Furry or Hardvice or whoever is definitely WP:POINT. It should be noted that for many of its articles, Galbijim is literally the only English-language source available. Since I've done a lot of editing and admin work there I feel I should stay neutral but otherwise, I would be voting keep all the way.--ThreeAnswers 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and relevant. -- Visviva 01:25, 25 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 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Open Source Centre

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. When I came across this article, it already had a deletion concern notice, but not AFD. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anomo 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:37, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barge of the Dead

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; Not notable JeffMurph 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on copyvio grounds, not on notability grounds. I, for one, would like to see an article on this; as I remember, it had a presence in several Star Trek episodes as well as a number of novels, and is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia due to its rich mythological parallels/inspiration and central place in Klingon beliefs on the afterlife. Ripping material from Memory Alpha, however, is not acceptable. Captainktainer * Talk 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• This can probably be speedied (using {{db-copyvio}}), depending on how broadly an admin interprets "commercial provider" -- Memory Alpha copyvios have certainly been speedied in the past. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 25 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. I think I can close this one early -- nom clearly didn't understand the subject's importance. Jacqui^★ 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Football (band)

Delete No indication of any notability in the article, no awards etc. Appears NN Spartaz 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very well-known indie rock band, easily fulfills WP:MUSIC. See allmusic entry, Pitchfork review, etc. This band toured the country several times and was on the well-respected label Polyvinyl Records. It was Mike Kinsella's main project for several years after he left Cap'n Jazz and before he started recording as Owen (band). Please do some research before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion! Amazinglarry 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per larry. hateless 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy, strong keep - Withdraw this nom, and know what you're trying to delete. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per amazinglarry. --Joelmills 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per amazinglarry WalterWalrus3 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep---What the heck? This is a well-known band! Like Amazinglarry said.Dan 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to add a little more info. American Football released 2 albums (an LP and an EP). Additionally, WP:MUSIC states pretty clearly that former bands containing members of later bands that are notable. Well, Owen (band) (Kinsella's solo project) has released 4 albums on Polyvinyl. Here's a reference from the Denver Westword (Source: Lexis-Nexis):

Copyright 2002 Denver Westword, LLC  
Denver Westword (Colorado)
November 21, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: Music/Columns
LENGTH: 291 words
HEADLINE: Critic's Choice
Owen
BYLINE: By Jason Heller
BODY:
Nobody likes a whiner. And yet a whole troop of emo crybabies, from Dashboard Confessional's Chris
Carraba to Bright Eyes' Connor Oberst, has whimpered its way into the spotlight over the past couple
of years. Mike Kinsella, otherwise known as Owen (appearing Tuesday, November 26, at Club 156 in
Boulder), is at least partly to blame. As drummer of the mid-'90s Illinois group Cap'n Jazz, Kinsella
helped tame the wuss-rock frontier now populated by the likes of Modest Mouse and Jimmy Eat World.
The members of Cap'n Jazz, though, were always deconstructionists at heart, using feedback, caterwauls
and solipsistic wordplay to unravel their songs almost faster than they could stitch them together.
As Cap'n Jazz mutated into Joan of Arc and then OWLS, the players softened and refined their sound,
invoking the abstract groove of Tortoise and conceptual folk-blues as much as the cathartic abandon of
Rites of Spring. Kinsella himself ventured even further into the realm of accessibility with his side
project, American Football, a stunning exhibition of intricate, elegant guitar pop. With Owen,
Kinsella has switched to guitar and vocals, boiling down American Football's melodic sensibility
to its purest essence. His self-titled debut album shimmers with wispy synth backdrops, bashful
strumming and his dandelion-puff voice, a plaintive sound stuck somewhere between Rainer Maria and an
unplugged Coldplay. Songs with titles such as "Declaration of Incompetence," with lyrics like "I can't
do anything/I can't do my hair right/Or have a good time/Or fall asleep with my girl," aren't going to
significantly distance Kinsella from the current herd of bleating emo troubadours. His finesse and
forbearance, though, already have.
LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2002

--Dan 07:48, 25 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 redirect to Chinese Democracy. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better (song)

Delete - article about a G'n'R song that hasn't been issued yet and may or may not be on a forthcoming album. Can be recreated when the album is issued and it is clear whether the song itself deserves an individual article Spartaz 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Verifiable GnR song, redirect to the album or keep. Frivolous nomination. Kappa 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even if the song is notable, we know nothing about its notability other than that it will be on what will be a notable album (due to its fabled delays) by a notable band. The song itself remains non-notable at the present moment. BigHaz 10:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. As the song is unwritten, there is nothing encyclopedic to put in an article about it, and no basis to assume that there will be enough on it to form an article once it is released. --Aquillion 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Given Axl Rose's reputation for not finishing things he has started, whether or not this song will ever be completed or be released is highly speculative. It fails WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. BigE1977 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Aquillion has expressed my sentiments on the subject eloquently. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album, unless released as a single. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect --FrasierC 15:16, 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. JIP | Talk 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Clockwork Waltz

Non-notable band tribute at community theater with limited run in one small city. Wikipedia is not a theater listing. Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Plans are actually in the works for a regional tour of independant theatres. The Dresden Dolls support this production and future tours, as well as productions of this nature. (Just look at their roots in the music industry) I don't feel the entry should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.149.182 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and I get the impression that individuals associated with the production have written the article, or at least the original text, and likely have written the above comment. Originalbigj 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Community theater? I don't think so. When the production lands on Broadway, or goes on a national/international tour with multiple verifiable sources, the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I brought this up before on the article's page. This is a community theatre project and not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. As Wine Guy said, when it gets big it can be remade. Tartan 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia may not be a theater listing, but it is an encyclopedia; that means that all subjects - whether you consider them relevant or not in your elitist snobbery of what is acceptable - should be allowed to have an entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.84.18.84 (talk •contribs) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article was added as what we felt was a notable entry for The Dresden Dolls and to people everywhere. The fact that a band signed to a major label would allow and encourage our production should be notable in itself. Citing WP:NOT is probably not the best method of recommendation for deletion. Nowhere in that article do I find anything that suggests our article is inappropriate to Wikipedia. This article was not meant to be as for a theatre listing, but to serve for reference as articles do for other plays and musicals. "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Why must you be so particular?Alexbt 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexbt, I cited WP:NOT casually, but we actually have a formal deletion policy and music notability guidelines. At the moment there isn't a specific guideline for theater productions, but if there were, then some level of national media coverage would be part of it. The band's involvement appears to be largely passive cooperation, and while that makes it worth noting on their article, the article doesn't fit the level of notability that we've established to prevent Wikipedia from becoming, essentially, Geocities for anybody who wants an article on themselves. More on point, we wouldn't want it to fill with advertising pages, either. By asserting standards of encyclopedic value we ensure that our users can think of Wikipedia as something useful. While we can include more, much more, than a paper encyclopedia, we can't include everything. I hope you do not see this as judgement of the artistic value of the show, because it is not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete maybe this show will be notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MarkBuckles 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Discount anon votes. Ifnord 05:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Necessary entry for Dresden Dolls oeuvre. NYcine 01:38, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aborted

Borderline Notable as per WP:Music. Seems to have been around forever but doesn't seem to have achieved anything. The article itself is just a discography and I'm pretty sure ther eare lots of places on the web where oyu can get one of these for this Spartaz 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They seem to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC (with enough albums with a record label), they also sell online here. --Porqin 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I might be biased because I am Belgian, but I know they are known in the European Grindcore scene. They are one of the top Belgian grindcore bands, toghether with Agatocles. I came here loking for information, which proves something.
• Keep For god's sake, Aborted is a known band, they even have videos around, don't delete this article, it is real
• Keep I nominated it but the creator provided good reasons why it should be kept. Meets criteria per WP:MUSIC.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 07:31, 25 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 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Menoosha Susungi

Tagged nn-bio, but notability is asserted (opened for Miriam Makeba, Kool and the Gang, Stevie Wonder). Either needs expanding and evidence of importance added, or deleting if there is no such evidence. Janitorial nomination, no vote. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article does not provide enough support for the idea that she satisfies WP:MUSIC. She did not open for Makeba, Kool and the Gang, and Wonder as a solo performer, but only as a member of a group, and apparently only one time for each of them. No All Music Guide page, and her web site [28] does not clearly indicate notability either. --Metropolitan90 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Metropolitan90 above. The article itself provides no evidence of notability, per WP:MUSIC. Mattisse 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above comments. --Brad101 22:21, 25 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. There was a strong lobby for merge and to merge other characters in the programme as well, but I have reservations about this as the competition results have not yet been announced. Merge can anyway be addressed without AfD. This article, if not merged, may well be suitable for AfD some time in the future, when the competition fever has diminished. Tyrenius 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Koumaev

Not-notable enough. abakharev 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Almost all other participants in this show, whatever it is, have their page on WP. Either we merge them all into one page (why not), or we delete them all, but deleting just this one and keeping others is kinda weird. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the lot Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all Phr (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all. Very unnotable. — mark ✎ 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all into a single article. Yamaguchi先生 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Koumaev is currently a top-6 finalist in a show that has only three more weeks to run. The show is also currently the #1 rated show for the Summer of 2006. He's definitely notable now, so the article should be kept. We should table the AfD for now, and if necessary can revisit the issue in a month, after the season ends. --Elonka 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Merge this one. Some of the contestants are clearly deserving of their own articles (see Benji Schwimmer, Heidi Groskreutz, multi-year U.S. National Swing Dance Champions). But as for Koumaev, I agree that there's not enough to justify an individual article at this time. I recommend having a one paragraph bio for each contestant on the main program page, and then "for more details, see" links to the individual contestants who are independently notable (such as Schwimmer). --Elonka 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious merge-Bri 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this one Dmitry Chaplin definitely deserves to have his own page. DJAlik 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Majority of contestants could fit into one page, given they've done almost nothing of note. People who have won or placed very highly in major tournaments, it can be argued, have done something noteworthy and are deserving of some measure. But most of these people are 15-minute celebrities and not something you'd EVER find in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Arguments on whether content would appear in paper encyclopedias are frankly irrelevant. It would be inconsistent to delete this entry and not delete the entries of other finalists. Moreover, as a top six contestant in the show, there is even less logic in deleting his entry before the show's completion. It should be noted, that merging all the articles is not an option without having this same discussion for each of the other finalists, and such a move would be blocked for those contestants like Schwimmer who have lengthier résumés. Rcharman 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There seems no logical reason to delete the artice. Is it taking up unecessary space the Wikipedia does not have? It is a good entry that helps impart information on it's subject; just as any good article in an encyclopedia would. Arguments that this would not appear in paper encyclopedias are irrelavent because they have different concerns such as space and printing costs. If that was a valid argument, then all articles about all actors would have to be removed, all articles about schools and universities would have to be removed, all articles about singers would have to be removed, all articles about plays and movies would have to be removed, etc. This is not a paper encyclopedia so deletion would be quite unjustified.

Diemunkiesdie 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep please the person is notable article and was expanded Yuckfoo 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep -- he's on the verge of NN, but I've seen much less notable subjects keep their articles. -Quasipalm 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, and split back if Ivan wins. --Gray Porpoise 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge conditionally to So You Think You Can Dance, then split again if he wins. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

FYI, I did some research and have considerably expanded the article with additional information and references. --Elonka 23:31, 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow Children at Play (Alternative rock)

Tagged nn-band but contested. No evidence of meetign WP:MUSIC - one EP and "local stardom". Entire repertoire apparently free online - not a good sign! Just zis Guy you know? 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I originally speedied this band. I can find no evidence of notability. Doesn't even sniff WP:MUSIC.
• Delete and protect Why is it afd'd? Speedy it again. Entire repertoire online would be a big plus in my book (see Cory Doctorow or Free Software Foundation or (to get self-referential) Wikipedia), but it looks like downloading requires registration with lots of personal info. Phr (talk) 15:13, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Didsbury Dozen

unencyclopaedic article nob-notable pub crawl DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I've drunk in about 8 of them, though. -- GWO
• Strong Keep. The Dozen is a notable rite of passage for young people of the area, most notably those who live in the residences of Manchester Metropolitan University. (Pally01 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete I wouldn't even put this in the Didsbury article, much less its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Not even The Crawl has its own article. No way this "event" of purely local interest needs one. Agent 86 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO (actually, maybe 7 rather than 8). Rite of passage yes, notable no. Oldelpaso 19:19, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sons Of Nothing

tagged for deletion as non-notable band, but contested. This is a Pink Floyd tribute with some local fame, may or may not meet WP:MUSIC (no real evidence presented that they do). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC the only Pink Floyd tribute band really worth an entry is Australian Pink Floyd Show who do world tours etc DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I speedied it yesterday as an nn-band and would support doing that again, but slow deletion for not meeting WP:NMG will do. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The band is apparently listed with PollStar [29] if that makes them more notable. I agree the Australian Pink Floyd is clearly more notable internationally. Sons Of Nothing is a regional phenomenon at this point. --166.70.238.250 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC, regional touring only. --Joelmills 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the one who originally placed the speedy tag (the article was much smaller then), I can say it fails WP:MUSIC Alphachimp ^talk 04:23, 26 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 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Light Performance

Commercial POV endorsement Skysmith 09:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - needs cleanup, or as an alternative, edit down and add to diamond -- Whpq 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - edited,clean up has been preformed, objective, more clean up if necessary [[User70.23.230.43]] 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - add to diamond right after color clarity and cut grading.
• Keep--Junebug12 20:17, 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 merge into Christ Church, Oxford. Done. Ifnord 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student (Christ Church)

Read it once, then twice and if you still don't get it, read it once more!!! Anyway, regardless, this article does nothing to assert the imprtance of it's subject DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom - I'm not entirely sure that what's there really qualifies as a subject, let alone one which needs a separate article. BigHaz 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Christ Church College -- GWO
• Merge per GWO --Spondoolicks 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per that hurt my head trying to understand. Merge away if you can make something out of it though... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• So what it's basically saying is that what other colleges call "Fellows", Christ Church call "Students"? And so that to avoid confusion, students themselves are always referred to as "undergraduates" (which they are across Oxford anyway)? Fair enough, yet another example of Oxford's wonderfully ridiculous conventions and traditions (like New College being one of the University's oldest), and I learned something, but is it really worthy of its own article? Merge to CC per GWO. Seb Patrick 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GWO. -999 (Talk) 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a localized usage that doesn't really need to even be in the said article. AdamBiswanger1 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge to christ church college. relevant slang in oxford university. --Ageo020 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not slang. It is the official title of members of the Governing Body. The use of this term is already in the main article. Just delete. --Bduke 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A dictionary sub-definition maybe, but not an encyclopedia article. --Xrblsnggt 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Agan, per GWO. Not a bad definition, but not an article Niki Whimbrel 14:58, 25 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 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmerston North Boys' High School 3rd XV

A High School's third Rugby team, however triumphant is simply not encyclopedic. Also suffers from POV and OR issues. --Aoratos 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge a condensed form into Palmerston North Boys' High School. They seem notable enough to have some content there, but not really for their own page, and this does indeed need to be cleaned pre-merge. GassyGuy 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• On second thought, I can't even find info about the team at [30], which seems like the place where it would be. Delete unless something can be sourced. If it can, I revert back to my merge suggestion. GassyGuy 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless the information in the article can be properly sourced, in that case, merge in condensed form, as above. --JoanneB 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete It's strange to have an article about a specific sports team from a school, especially the THIRD team. This has obviously been put here by someone currently in the team or related to the team in some way. If I was a more experienced wikipedian I would have just deleted it on first sight... Ham21 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you wouldn't :) It does not meet any of the speedy criteria (as it definitely asserts notability), so AfD is the way to go. Let's not stretch the speedy deletion criteria without discussion... --JoanneB 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ooooh. My bad. Ham21 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge if sources can be found) per GassyGuy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all AdamBiswanger1 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The most that is needed is info on what sports a school plays and which tournaments its first teams have won. Landolitan 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hey, an article from my home town! It's great to see local people taking an interest in Wikipedia, and very encouraging for the future of online information in New Zealand. Delete unverifiable. Ziggurat 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Possible vanity, given that this is the third team. I'd vote to merge if it were the first team, but this is the third. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly vanity, but a case could be made for speedy deletion as an attack page.-gadfium 08:47, 25 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 userfy. There is strong consensus that the articles as they exist are not suitable for mainspace. Once they are cleaned up, they can be moved back. - brenneman ^{L} 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States health reform 1912-1920 - United States health reform under FDR - United States health reform under Truman - United States health reform under Nixon - United States health reform under Carter - United States health reform under Clinton

According to the discussion at Talk:Health care reform, the creation of this group of articles appears to have been encouraged by a college instructor at Duke University, User:Conoverc, for his Politics of Health Care class to address why universal health care proposals have been defeated despite overwhelming public support for universal coverage. To me, WP:OR appears to have been violated in that a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position appears in each article. He admitted to devising a common article template for his students to use in order to reach the conclusion "why the window of opportunity (for reform) closed", and the edit histories reveal a flurry of referenced assertions in the various sections of each article. In my opinion, the position being advanced is that reform or change is an "opportunity"; the synthesis is the A + B + C insertion of references to reach that conclusion. Medtopic 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All Argeed ir is OR. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaned my mind after doing a little quiet research Very Weak Keep All but these articles really need cleanup Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional keep and cleanup. I cheerfully confess I have not read each nominated article. The ones I did read were not so awful as to be unsalvageable; they were referenced. Even if they were created as a class project, they contain encyclopedic information that should not be simply erased. They do need to be edited to remove jargon ("the policy stream"?) and checked for NPOV, but this makes them no different from any other article about history. Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The articles are useful as supplements to the presidents in question. Much of the non-NPOV position has been editted out, leaving valuable articles (though bloated, in my opinion) - JethroElfman 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per JethroElfman - NickSentowski 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All -- Wikipedia prohibits "connecting the dots" as a violation of the policy against original research. See [31] Suggest the material be moved to Wikisource instead. Morton devonshire 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Although some of the articles are problematic there is sufficient encyclopedic content that they should be saved. They certainly need more work and I'm interested in discussing it with anyone else who is willing to spend some time seperating wheat from chaff. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all The synthesis to advance a position problem is still present. For example, it is noticable that only certain Presidents are part of the series. I seem to recall a few presidents in between and since like Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and a Bush or two (a couple of whom signed reform legislation like the establishment of Medicare and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act). And the articles have statements like "resulted in no progress towards universal health care" that demonstrate their advocacy of the point of view that universal health care would be progress in the U.S. GRBerry 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - While the quote presented from the article is probably POV, it seems that deleting (or rewriting) a bad sentence would be preferable to deleting an article which has some useful content. As for the issue of "missing presidents" from the series, your position almost seems to be that, if we don't have an article about United States health reform under Reagan then we should delete United States health reform under Nixon. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't our response be to write the "missing" article about Reagan rather than delete the one about Nixon? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No the point is that the series was constructed as it is in order to advance a point of view, thus fauling afoul of the policy against original research. There is no excuse for a neutral series of articles on healthcare reform in the U.S. omitting coverage of the introduction of Medicare, which is one of the most important pieces of healthcare legislation. One could say that the 2003 reform act is too new to evaluate in an encyclopedic fashion. Why are all cases of significant reform omitted from the series? GRBerry 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I find it somewhat ironic that I'm speaking in defense of these articles; 99% of my AfD votes are straight "Delete" because 99% of what comes through AfD is utter crap. These are not utter crap. They may be incomplete, POV, poorly written and partially redundant...but none of those are problems for which AfD is the best answer. The best answer is to rewrite, remove POV, and add more encyclopedic content, not to remove the useful information which is there. I know I'm starting to repeat myself now, but if information is missing why don't we add the needed info, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting useful content that simply needs improvement? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is a violation of Wiki policy. Do you think these articles do not violate that policy? Medtopic 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that there is certainly problematic content which can be removed and corrected with rewriting. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all I often see articles like this, with OR being the main premise for deletion, but invariably someone throws in the words "Inherently POV" or "Inherently OR". Not the case here. While I certainly agree that Wikipedia is not a place for "connecting the dots", I see no harm in making uncontroversial statements of the obvious theory behind such information. Perhaps our encyclopedia could just spew out facts and statistics with no correlation, but we must realize that the theory that binds these facts is as true, and is as much value to the encyclopedia as anything else that can be copied from an almanac, and the theory relating to this information is generally uncontroversial. What about the parts that are? Get rid of them. Like my history teacher used to say, "Facts without theory is trivia. Theory without facts is bullshit." And who's to say that this is OR? Who's to say that it is connecting the dots? Do not forget that each of these articles contain something like 10-15 references (Take a look at United States health reform under Clinton), so an OR claim in itself is strenuous enough, and certainly not strong enough to warrant such an ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion. I think what everyone here is looking for is a bunch of these: ^[1], and I certainly am too, but I'm not going push for its deletion on those grounds. That, like everything else in these articles, can be improved.
• Now I have a few reminders for us all. Firstly, there is something called Template:OR. It says, "Hey, let's work together and fix this". Secondly, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. If cleanup is reasonable, which it most certainly is, then deletion is unthinkable. Thirdly, many of us are probably under the impression that the OR is much more serious than it is because of its non-encyclopedic tone, which reads like a tenth-grader giving a book-report. Let's fix this, not blow it up. AdamBiswanger1 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is certainly possible for editors to interpret Wikipedia policy differently, so calling this an "ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion" is unwarranted. If one believes that individual referenced points are strung together to make a point (i.e. connecting the dots), then he or she will view this as OR. If one does not believe that, then he or she will not. Medtopic 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I certainly understand OR--as noted in my comment, I am not convinced that this is OR. The reason I suggested that the decisions of other voters was "reflexive", is because the issue here is unusually complex for AfD, and without an examination of the text, it may very well seem like OR on the surface. I'm no better than anyone else--sometimes I just jump on the dogpile and type "Delete per nom", but sometimes I see a flash of light in the article, and I investigate more carefully. Also, be assured that I am not accusing all editors who want to delete the article as being careless. AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure which of the four of us you are accusing of carelessness, however, I think it's fair to grant the benefit of doubt to others here and assume that they have investigated carefully, too. The fact that three of the four editors voting "delete" thus far have referenced a particular section of WP:OR (i.e. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) does not suggest that they have given only a cursory examination of the text, or that have voted reflexively, or that they are not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Medtopic 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• I am willing to say that the other editors probably spent about 2 minutes in reading the articles. I respect you and all of the other editors here, and I am by no stretch of the imagination insulting them or looking down upon them because, well, we all do it (as I said). But to assume that every editor took long and deliberate look at each one, and upon a long period of thoughtful contemplation reached his or her decision would only be a lie to oneself, unless by some miracle each one actually did-- in which case I will tuck my tail between my legs and go home. But all of this is rather peripheral to my main contention, which is that this is not OR, and it is not advancing a position. And if it is? Well then we'll take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary. AdamBiswanger1 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• And I'd really like to emphasize this part: "...take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary." We really shouldn't be deleting useful content that can reasonably be brought into compliance with policy, which this can. The policy problems are related to the quality of the writing, not the quality of the content. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. The topics are worthy, and the articles can be improved to remove any OR. -- Avenue 10:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The titles should be changed. The word "reform" assumes that the change is for the better. But often there is not agreement on whether the result is actually better than before the "reform". And even if "reform" were OK, the subject being "reformed" is not "health." Maurreen 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Complete agreement that titles would be the first thing to NPOV, and some merges are probably in order. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, summarize, cleanup. These read as essays more than encyclopedic articles. They need to be summarized, text attributed to reliable sources, editorializing removed, and abundant references provided. If editors are not willing to do that job, then Delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start a list and I hope that others who have 'voted' to keep and cleanup will sign on to help.

• Editors willing to help clean up this mess:

1. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
2. (Not Sure if this is the palce for the list) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
3. AdamBiswanger1 21:18, 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. -- Longhair 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goulash Communism

Besides its obvious brevity the article contains nothing but an amalgam of highly superficial catchwords without any explanative value whatsoever and displays a clearly non-neutral point of view.
Many of the common complaints regarding articles on topics concerning "Socialism" apply here:
1. No socialist country has ever proclaimed itself to be "communist" this being merely the final goal society strives to reach in the distant future.
2. "'Lighter' version of communism" is highly tendentious, implying that "communism" as such would be "hard" only to be a bit "alleviated" in its "later stages".
3. "Much diminished socialist propaganda" ("propaganda" here obviously but unduly used as a derogative term) is totally incorrect. As in every other socialist country the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the forms of its dissemination in Hungary underwent adaptations and modernisations, especially after 1956. But neverthelees it remained the official guiding thought and was propagated as such right until 1989.
4. The introduction of some market elements (combined with planning) as was the case in Hungary (but not only there !) is in no way incomaptible with a socialist economy. Therefore no "aknowledging of a deviation" would have been necessary.
This artificially magnified discussion of certain idiosyncratic features of the building of a socialist society in individual countries, for insthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goulash_Communism&action=edit Edit this pageance in Hungary, should at best be avoided altogether. And if this proves to unfeasible, in the case of Hungary we already have the "Happiest Barrack" article (also fatally flawed but still far better than this one) of which this article is basically a shallow and useless reduplication.
I therefore demand the deletion of the article on "Goulash communism" as quickly as possible.
--Elsmlie 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Its brevity may be due to its relative youth; it still has the "new article smell" on it. Fact is, the term is out there, and I'd like to see it explained better. I learned the term in high school history (although high school history tends to be a tad more simplistic than anything at the post-secondary level). I remember hearing the term as well on a TV documentary. I'd actually like to see the article fleshed out. It ranks up there with terms like "gunboat diplomacy" and "bamboo curtain" that people coin to describe a situation or concept that appears to be different from the norm. --SigPig 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Expand if possible see this diff, article was apparently created to fill a redlink someone else had left (with a misspelling). I notice there's no hu:gulyáskommunizmus article though. Phr (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I hope there will be some improvement as time goes on. Zello 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (if really necessary) If you insist on keeping the term (which, I will repeat, may be widespread in American High School history lessons but still doesn't become any more correct or useful) merge this article with the "Happiest barrack" article and add the term "Goulash communism" as a second "catchword phrase" there. We do not need both articles.

--Elsmlie 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thinking about it a second time, I believe that when merging the two articles, it would be even better to keep the heading "Goulash communism" and delete the "Happiest barrack" heading instead. The content of the "Happiest Barrack" article should then be moved under the "Goulash communism" heading and this term be added as a second catchword there (as proposed in my previous comment). Despite its flaws "Goulash communism" as a term is in itself less offensive than "Happiest barrack" and should therefore be used as their common heading. --Elsmlie 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep again, let's fix the problems addressed rather than delete the article. I've heard of Goulash communism, and it is most certainly a valid phrase AdamBiswanger1 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• OK, here's my proposal:
  

1. Repair the various problems in the article mentioned in my original deletion request. Since the article is not very long and it's been me who brought this all up I could do so, if you agree.

2. Sometime in the future, merge the article with the "Happiest barrack" article and use "Goulash communism" as their common heading.

What do you think ? --Elsmlie 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I have now fundamentally revised the article conforming to the points raised above. I hope my revision will find your approval and we can close the discussion. --Elsmlie 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a common used expression for the 1963(?amnesty)-1989 period in Hungary. kelenbp 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Merge the Happiest Barrack into this one, since "Goulash Communism" seems to be the more common term. I created the article out of "self interest", wanting to learn more about the subject. I am pleasantly surprised of the response, so far. I would like to see/add references to more or less similar situations, like Tito's Yugoslavia or present day China. Barabum 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or Merge and keep a redirect); the term is clearly a notable one (see the Google test). Problems with the content should be solved by editing, not deletion. KissL 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think the original problems have already been solved since I have fundamentally revised the article yesterday. I therefore repeat my proposal to close the discussion. Merging and redirecting can be done later. --Elsmlie 10:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest merging and redirecting sooner, rather than later, to avoid duplicate work.Barabum 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep. This a a normal, very frequent historical term now in all relevant European languages. Juro 22:47, 25 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 and I ignored those dubious keeps, just for the record.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beefy (artist)

Podcaster, amateur webcomic artist, apparently unsigned nerdcore hip-hop artist (no albums yet). His claim to fame is two animations on albinoblacksheep.com. Please excuse me if I take that as a different meaning of the word fame from the one I am used to. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Criteria --Xrblsnggt 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no non-homemade records, no indication of significance. Just some guy with a website. Friday (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Most nerdcore albums are "home made". Also he was present on the Rhyme Torrents[32] compilation, which is the first major collab between several nerdcore artists. Also he is featured in Project: Nerdcore [33], the nerdcore documentry. --Kahless720 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I would hazard a guess that across the board, most records are homemade. Most records also get no reputable sources talking about them. This is exactly why we don't cover most records. Friday (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Since the last time this deletion issue was brought up I've gotten more coverage and reviews. From what I understand at the end of August I'll be mentioned in an issue of Wired Magazine. Not to be the vainest man in the world, but in the realm of nerdcore I'd say that I'm at least a bit significant. Beefyness 08:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • note: ip=71.83.252.111; text deleted by 151.198.116.169, restored by Gimmetrow
• Keep He may only have two known cartoons, but he's currently working on a few Nerdcore-Hiphop projects (Tri-Forc3, new album), most Nerdcore Hiphop is created in a home or private office, and in his trade, he's basically the best I've heard, and really stays true to the Nerdcore genre. TimCoPress 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* Delete - Beefy's too fat for wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.48.120 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 July 2006

• Delete It's not as though he's an actual artist or a reputable one at least. Many people with flash cartoons just don't make wiki pedia articles like this about themselves. This is just another cheap attempt to be on the internet and wikipedia. Definitely delete. Falloople 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - in the "media coverage" section 4 links are given. One is a blog, and the ref to G4 is a 404 now. The other two need context - does an interview by comixfan imply some degree of notability? Gimmetrow 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• STOP USING THE WORD NERD CORE. THE LAMEST THING EVER—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.89.185 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 July 2006
• Delete per nom. Also can someone check if Kahless720 and TimCoPress are sock puppets since these are their only edits -Bogsat 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that these are not fake posts or accounts or whatever. Timco, Kahless, and Amy are just people who like my stuff. If you want to discredit their opinions and votes just because they want to keep the page up, then by all means don't let them have a say. Beefyness 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep:This page is not in violation of any of the vanity page rules. Beefy has gained a lot of street cred in the last few years as more people listen to his albums, read his comics and tune into his ever entertaining podcasts. knowlege of beefy and his work is a more than excellent introduction into the little known nerdcore hip-hop scene/genre. if there is a place on the web for things worth knowing about it's here on wikipedia, that is why beefy has a page here to begin with. 67.188.213.76 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Amy Hanson

• Only registered accounts can vote. Thanks. Stubbleboy 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Discount sock/meat puppet votes. Ifnord 05:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; this fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can figure. There is one press mention, on the website of a local TV station; the other links are blogs or forums, and aren't reliable. Albums aren't on a label. No claim of touring. Closing admin: I don't envy you; please do check for puppets. *sigh* Mangojuice^talk 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Stubbleboy 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Sydney Demonstration School

Consensus seems to be that schools under high school age are not inherantly notable. Only actual claims at notability seem to fall under the history of the area rather than the school itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, sorry, seems like the whole page is a copyvio anyway, didn't catch it right away cause it's from a couple different pages. Marked for speedy now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — A {{copyvio}} template would have been preferable, as there is a whole process set up to handle such cases. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:22, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2013 World Championships in Athletics

Too far in the future, too speculative. Punkmorten 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a notable sporting event and it's not too far in advance (note the article for the 2022 Winter Olympics). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note the speculative nature of the article. Punkmorten 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - crystalballism at work here. The article has no substantiated information, and is pure speculation. The article can be created when facts are known. -- Whpq 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sure there is plenty of sourceable material about bids out there. Landolitan 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough substantiated information here. Yes there's a 2022 Olympics article, but the Olympics are in a different league in terms of coverage and preparation -- although if someone were to AFD it I might consider voting "delete" as too far ahead as well. 23skidoo 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispering 13:29, 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 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cohearence

non-notable band Travelbird 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. --Porqin 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. DrunkenSmurf 17:34, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digimods

non-notable webpage Travelbird 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with Porqin. The article could also be used for more notable items that were part of the Digimon universe. - NickSentowski 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. -- Steel 23:45, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Sporting League

non-notable, a league (?), no Google hits Travelbird 11:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per non-notable, only 10 total google hits, some to this page. --Porqin 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, not sure it even exists... Andymarczak 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The League existed from 1970-1971 in England. I know its pre-google, but pre-google doesn't necessarily mean outside the realm of wikipedia. If you look at the (admittedly few) google references, they do provide a bit of information, and I've tried to fill it in to the article. Anyway, I'm voting keep for several reasons:

1. It was a professional league, even if only for a short while. It was also a professional league in England, the home of football and a major footballing nation by almost any criteria.

2. 1970 was a watershed year for sponsorship in football, with the introduction of 3 major sponsor events (Texaco Cup and Watney Cup being the others), and the Ford Sporting League was an important part of the trend. This needs to be filled in better in the article, and I don't quite have the resources to do it.

3. It had a unique and interesting scoring system, about which much could be written. Vickser 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Comments updated further: Vickser 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral It still seems that if the league was very influential, there would be more than 10 hits on google, as people would write about this league, regardless of when it was formed. If the scoring system, the ability to deduct points, is unique to football; then maybe the league is worth mentioning. --Porqin 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a potentially interesting article about a professional league involving well known teams. (A quick google search yields not only Oldham, but also Fulham- I'd certainly be interested in finding out which other teams participated.) I won't rehash the reasons Vickser has given, but I strongly agree with all of them, particularly the interest generated by the unique scoring system- are there any other tournaments in football where scoring was directly influenced by sportsmanship? True, the competition was short lived, but so was the Super Cup, and that (rightly) has an article. I'll admit, I hadn't heard of this competition before looking at this article- but that just shows one of the great things about wikipedia, the potential for learning about interesting things, just like this.--Robotforaday 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just as an aside to the above, the Oldham Athletic: Complete Record 1899-1988 by Garth Dykes might have results in the Ford sporting league (which would hopefully at least tell us just who participated), with possibly a final league table. Could be worth a look before deleting. I will get it out of my university library in a few days.--Robotforaday 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I know the teams playing will effect some votes, so it's worth noting that Colchester United, currently playing in the Championship, also participated in the league. So far they, Fulham and Oldham Ath are the only ones I've found, but I'll also be doing some more research. Vickser 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pro league and with more work it could be a very interesting article.  Slumgum T. C.   12:47, 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathic Papers

essay/email, orginal research/not encyclopedic Travelbird 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for not conforming to any of the standards that Wikipedia sets, except maybe a number of (unwikied) references. --Thorne N. Melcher 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc., etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is an article that quotes the body of a spam email. --Xrblsnggt 03:41, 25 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Café Reconcile

I removed much of this article as a copyvio, and now what is left doesn't seem close to passing WP:CORP. It was prodded previously which was removed without comment. Kevin 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP. --Porqin 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a small cafe Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's fairly notable here in New Orleans as a restaurant that is essentially a nonprofit for training disadvantaged kids to work in the food industry. Will try to add to the article. NawlinWiki 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nice cafe and a noble cause. Unfortunately does not meet WP:CORP. No assertion of notability in any of the article versions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 25 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minidab

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom as well as problems with the article being non-encyclopediac. --Thorne N. Melcher 18:04, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradecision

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Appears to be vanity too. --Porqin 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam, snake-oil peddler etc. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Edit I would remove the last paragraph/line. It is a legitimate piece of trading software, but the text reads like an advert. Daviegold 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Legitimate, maybe. Notable, no. --Xrblsnggt 03:45, 25 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.