Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 29

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

The result was delete all individual books, and redirect them to the series. Grandmasterka 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Complete Idiot's Guide... books

All of these are books in the "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series (like "Windows for Dummies"). Though they are good books, obviously none of them are in the caliber of From Beirut to Jerusalem and don't deserve articles on wikipedia. There is already an article on the series generally at The Complete Idiot's Guide to....

• The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran
• The Complete idiot's guide to Understanding Iraq
• The Complete Idiot's guide to the Middle East conflict

--Chaser T 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional entries added by TenOfAllTrades:

• The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle east confict second Edition
• The complete Idiot's guide to the Middle East conflict third Edition

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete these three, as none of them gives any particularly meaningful information that can't be determined from glancing at the cover. These are possibly real articles which could be written about these, but these aren't a good way to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. I deprodded one of them, but I see no reason to delete them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've also added some additional entries to the list. A redirect to The Complete Idiot's Guide to... might make sense in their places. The series as a whole is arguably a notable phenomenon, individual books from it are not. (I strongly urge anyone commenting here to look at these 'articles'.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all five. Unless a case can be made as to why any of these are notable in their own right a redirect to the series is a better idea. -- Scientizzle 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. These books are notable in general, but not in specific. Crabapplecove 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I don't think your average how-to book or textbook has any reason for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also utterly pointless for Wikipedia to have any business keeping track of book editions. Sheesh. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All These books are notable as well as popular to a niche market. They are good books and are definitely NOT average by nature. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently, I don't see any reason why we need an article for each book. Perhaps if these can be expanded beyond "This book makes topic x easier to understand for the average person," they might be worth keeping. Otherwise, put them in a list and redirect to the series article. Peyna 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the "xth edition" ones, as they're monstrously unneccessary. Delete the others listed with a redirect to the series itself (that article could probably be expanded with a brief summary of what's in each book, but there's no need for separate articles on each). I'll admit, though, that the Koran one is written by at least one probably-notable author (Toropov), but that doesn't make the book itself notable. BigHaz 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. The books' existence is verifiable, but the articles make no assertion of notability. Looking at the main The Complete Idiot's Guide to... page, there's plenty of room there for any discussion of notable books in the series, or even a complete list of titles (if the editors there deemed it appropriate), but I see no reason for any extra pages right now. Jacqui^★ 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - should be mentioned in a single, generalised article. Do not warrant individual articles. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and unlink: The Complete Idiot's Guide is a nice, logical spot for mentioning the items in the series. If there is nothing to say about a particular one (and ...to Windows is probably the biggest seller and has the best claim), then this is mere fragmentation and clicking on redlinks that didn't need to be lodged in the first place. Geogre 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I agree with TenOfAllTrades and Geogre. —Encephalon 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Perhaps a footnote in the The Complete Idiot's Guide to... article might be appropriate, but even that could get listcrufty. On their own, they don't belong here. — NMChico24 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. There can be a list of specific titles as part of the article on the series as a whole, but unless a specific book is particularly notable it should not have a separate article. Even if it is notable, it should only be split out of the main article if there are concerns over length, which at this point is not even worth thinking about. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm pretty sure "delete and redirect" is prohibited by the GFDL, which is too bad, as I agree with the sentiment in a lot of cases.--Chaser T 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all into the main article, obviously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. But list in the main article wouldn't be too bad. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:21 (UTC)
• Delete -Should be mentioned in Single. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and stubbify. And let some complete idiot expand upon the given article therein... Black-Velvet 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Geogre. Go ahead and add mentions to the main article if they're not there already. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per this whole mess of stuff above. R.E. Freak 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think that Haynes Manuals shows how notable series of instructional books should be dealt with. Uncle G 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. The books themselves do not have any meaningful or unique content: they are simply guides, all with a similar format. A single article on the series (as expansive as necessary) would be quite reasonable, but one article on every book is ridiculous, unless a particular book in the series was unusually notable. Dark Shikari 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Re-direct to series Unless there's enough notability and information to give a book its own page, it can be covered on the series page. They can be split if that ever happens, but it doesn't seem to be the case right now. Ace of Sevens 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete --Aoratos 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Stubbify The individual books aren't notable enough, but the series is, and should have an expanded article. --Saralk 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, at best they deserve a mention in the main article. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete add any useful content to their main series articles. rootology 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and stubbify, definitely, per Saralk. The individual books - and CERTAINLY the individual editions - are not notable, but the series really is and deserves a much more thorough article. Penelope D 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as we delete these books, we are necessarily setting a precedent and bar for all books. Unless something is particularly notable about a book or an author, WP judges notability by sales volumes; these have relatively high sales volumes that few books will match or beat. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps a good rule to use would be, if a book comes in a series, is its sale volume notally better than that of its series overall? If a book sold very well, but the rest of the series sold equally well, it might well be better to cover the whole series in a single article. (The length of the series in question may also have some influence.) Penelope D 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's true that ...Middle East is #2,949 at Amazon[1], ...Koran #168,013[2] & ...Iraq #500,655[3]. From those numbers, I'd think only ...Middle East has a strong case for an individual article based upon sales. In this situation the books are part of a larger, notable franchise that, I think, would benefit from a comprehensive review of all titles. This doesn't preclude a future creation of individual articles, but the state of the current book-specific articles is pathetic and the series article is woefully underdeveloped. Fatten up The Complete Idiot's Guide to... and branch off as needed. -- Scientizzle 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all HOWEVER merge any cases of "2nd edition" or "3rd edition". These do not need separate articles. I see no reason why individual books for this series are any less notable than individual articles on fiction series books. I also agree with the above that this sets a bad precedent. Also, I completely disagree with POV reasoning given by the nominator -- just because the nominator feels certain books are not as good as another book, that's no reason to deny an article to said books. It's like someone trying to get the article on "The Da Vinci Code" deleted on the grounds that he or she believes the book is not as good as "Holy Blood and Holy Grail". 23skidoo 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I did phrase it that way. I should have said none of the books are individually notable, which is what I was thinking (and apparently imagining people were telepathic). I think the way to deal with these is to create a list like List of ...For Dummies books, as I note that even "Windows for Dummies" lacks an article (though perhaps that book is notable enough to have one).--Chaser T 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep all except edition-specific. Merge editions into a single article for each title. Create a category to make it easy for readers to find the books. Fg2 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the non-edition-specific ones really notable enough by themselves to justify having articles, though? Currently they're just a couple of sentences explaining what the book is about - which the title of the article tends to be able to do adequately. BigHaz 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the individual books, but have an entry for the series.Edison 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete each individual article, make one article that covers information about the series. Maybe a list of best selling ones. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual articles but maintain a good article on the overall series per others above. Metamagician3000 06:47, 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 keep. Grandmasterka 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tarrant

Candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senator from Vermont. Prod was removed to the talk page with the comment "I removed the proposal to delete the Article on Richard Tarrant. The delete proposal is most likely a "HACK"." I don't know the meaning of the word "hack" in that context so I don't know how to respond. Anyway, four reaons were offered for why the article should be kept. My comments appear in parentheses:

#"Richard founded one of Vermonts most important companies." (see third point for reason why this isn't all that impressive) #"Richard is running for US Senante in 2006." (Candidates aren't notable in and of themselves per WP:BIO #"Richard's campagin is one of the leading advertisers in Vermont." (Maybe the article should be merged to Advertising in Vermont?)#"Richard was involved in Vermont's largest accounting scandal." (He testified and wrote an op-ed piece about it. The article does not claim he was charged.) JChap (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A prod can be removed for ANY reason. Explaining an AfD by posting a rebuttal to the person who removed a prod is NOT the best way to explain why an article should be deleted - that person may not have come up with the best set of reasons. And certainly is unlikely to have come up with a complete set of reasons. John Broughton 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely correct about a sophmoric nomination that was an ill-conceived attempt at humor. The reason why the article should be deleted is that while of his numerous accomplishments each comes close, he has not done any one thing that would qualify him under WP:BIO. His basketball accomplishments were in Division II. Cofounding a company that is later sold for $1.2 billion is impressive, but $1 billion companies are fairly common these days. There are many other high-achievers who do not have articles here. As for his campaign for Senate (and I know we disagree on this), I think the 100 years test is appropriate. With few exceptions, no one in 100 years is going to care about a candidate for Senate unless he wins. The notablility of candiates is ephemeral. It is better to cover them on the campaigns wikia or on Wikinews than here. JChap (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, non-stub article per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and cofounding a company that sold for over $1 billion is notable in my book. Being a US Senate candidate in addition nudges it over the line. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, this is a non-stub article with verified content. Secondly, a US Senate candidate is notable in nature. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but recreate if he wins the nomination or does something spectacular between now and then. Please note that he is a primary election candidate, and therefore less than notable than your average regular senate election cadidate. Peyna 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Fagles' logic better; keep it for now, delete it later if needed. Peyna 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - senate candidate + non-stub = keep. If this article did not exist, this information would need to be in Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006. There is little doubt that he will win the nomination; if he loses, the article can be deleted at that point.--Fagles 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Senate candidates are notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Let me emphasize that being a candidate is not the reason for keeping, but rather the multiple occasions of hitting the news with scandal and ongoing (yes) suspicions. His name is moderately frequently mentioned with some hostility on left wing radio. Geogre 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep While I strongly disagree with the rationale "a US Senate candidate is notable in [sic] nature" for myriad reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion, I do have to say that his other contributions (as noted and sourced in the article, as well as the whisperings referenced by Geogre) give me reason to believe he at least deserves a footnote. — NMChico24 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per NMChico24. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It would appear being a senate candidate is notable, and the article is long enough to warrant it's existence if the aforementioned point is considered borderline. Black-Velvet 06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Many brushes with notability, like he hangs on the fringes of famous people. He's not involved with scandal, but writes about it. He's not an elected official, but wants to be. More to the point, unless there's been an article about the election race itself, I'm seeing a violation of WP:C&E which states elections first, then the candidate. And if this is an article about a candidate, then it needs to be pared down to focus on election issues, not his general bio, per WP:C&E. WP:C&E is only a guideline right now, but I propose it's better than guessing and hemming and hawing. Tychocat 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is indeed an article about the election race itself: Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006--Fagles 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a guy who founded a company later sold for $1.2 billion. It's very likely, with that kind of money, that he'll continue to be in the news. And he's odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in the November 2006 general election, so he's not exactly a fringe candidate. John Broughton 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This delete proposal should be removed immediately. Through his advertising campaign Richard Tarrant is on Vermont TV and Radio pervasively. This alone warrants the article. I argue that the delete proposal, is an attempt to discredit the article, because it was added hours after information about Richard Tarrant's oversight failure in an accounting scandal was added to the article. J23 17:43, 29 July 2006
  • Just a friendly reminder to always assume good faith. Peyna 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unless something drastic happens, he'll be the Republican candidate for VT-Sen. That is more than notable. --waffle iron ^talk 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as he was the founder of notable corporation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - People go to Wikipedia as a source for NPOV information on topics relevant to their lives. A Senate candidate from Vermont is noteworthy, at least to folks from Vermont. Amusing that we have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion but apparently no Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy retention. Williamborg (Bill) 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Joy of joys - found it. There is a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Unfortunately the criterai can't be applied here, but we can always debate revised/expanded "Speedy keep" criteria there. Williamborg (Bill) 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, criteria for speedy retention would be a situation where it is very obvious that it will be a unanimous keep, there are no delete votes and the nominator withdraws their nomination. For the moment, Tychocat is the only remaining delete vote. Peyna 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly with only 3 federal representatives for the state (2 Senators and 1 Rep), the candidates for those offices are quite notable to residents of Vermont. --waffle iron ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is to be noted this is not a vote, but a discussion of issues. The fact that Tarrant is notable to those in Vermont does not make him notable to someone in California, which is a given. If the only factor to notability is that someone, somewhere, might find it interesting, this gives inclusion a whole new meaning and requires a rewriting of WP:BIO et al. However the article ends up, I do not see my points refuted. Shrug. Life goes on. Tychocat 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems a bad faith nomination for me. Hektor 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable anyway from his business career and press coverage. --Mereda 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is certainly as important as his Senate race opponents. 71.241.141.57 22:32, 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe galambos

Not notable auto-biography of a musician Jmatt1122 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Apart from his own personal website, which was pretty much copy and pasted into the article (see for yourself), I can find no real references to him. Additionally, the creator's username suggests this may be a vanity page. Srose (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom rootology 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio (as recently created). --ColourBurst 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as above. --Cassavau 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. Acyso 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio under 48 hours old. Srose (talk) 21:36, 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 Speedy Delete. Yanksox 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getbroadband.ie

Not Notable. Attic Owl 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as empty: Failing that, delete for saying pretty much nothing that you can't gain from reading the domain and its making no claims whatever for the site's success or significance. Geogre 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Simply stating what the subject exists as in one sentence conveys no context at all whatsoever. — NMChico24 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:35 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's not even worth a stub. Black-Velvet 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, tagging with {{db-empty}}. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:55, 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. Grandmasterka 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Zest Solutions

Non notable company with non noticeable products. There is no mention of the company in indian media. Ageo020 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It appeared at this convention. The description at that site I just linked to seems to provide some sort of convincing level of notability. The article is indeed poorly written though. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertisent for a marketably small un-notable company. WP:CORP Somerset219 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It can't stay like this, and the article offers us no wedge with which to crack the subject open. Investigation shows that the company is not particularly large. The copy is not quite advertising as much as it looks like the replica of the company's website summary. Geogre 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Looks like advertising. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:36 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The user who created the page is called Ezest. I think that is enough to discard this article as blatant advertising. Black-Velvet 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement for a non-notable company. Unfortunately, advertising isn't a speedy criterion. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The copy is advertising, violating WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, nn company. rootology 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Does not assert criteria based on WP:CORP. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TatvaSoft

Another non notable software company with NN products. Just has 30 employees. No mention of the company in Indian media.Reads like an ad 'safest player in business outsourcing' Ageo020 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising, and there isn't much reason or method for treating the subject in an NPOV manner. It is merely a company doing what companies do. Geogre 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What seperates this from any other company? If it is the first to do something, or helps to invent something new... I would reconsider my opinion—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising? -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:37 (UTC)
• Delete. The user who created the article is named after the company itself. Blatant advertising. It would appear we're suffering something akin to an epidemic of this behaviour. Black-Velvet 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, more vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another nn company per nom. rootology 18:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone HomeTOWNboy 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete its only shred of "viral" spreading through the internet. Grandmasterka 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Hats Only Productions

prod removed. Not seeing any notability - claims to have shown locally, and be "viral" throughout the internet, but google and yahoo yield 0 hits for the name. (note that removing "productions", of course, yields something else entirely). As far as I can find, their films are only around on youtube. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. When the company claims "viral spread" through the Internet, you know that means us, too. They like to spread the word about themselves, apparently, through electronic means, and, despite that, they haven't penetrated Google as a production company. Geogre 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:37 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service, in terms of the viral mention. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In desperate need of Wikification, and doesn't meet notability criteria. Black-Velvet 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. R.E. Freak 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn rootology 18:52, 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: I have speedily deleted this page. It was an empty page. A CSD tag was removed four days ago and replaced with {{hangon}}, but despite the promise to write "an explanation of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion", neither such an explanation nor any attempt to add even a word's worth of content has been made in these last 4 days. The title appears to indicate this German film, but in a quick search I was unable to find any sources that may be used to write an article of encyclopedic value. Should the page's creator (or anyone else) be able to do so, they are welcome to try. In the meantime, however, the encyclopedia is under no obligation to hold non-encyclopedic article pages. —Encephalon 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Peters (film)

No content in original; was flagged for speedy deleting, then speedy tag was removed but no content was added... Valrith 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll add some content regarding the film; it appears notable. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Never mind; I'm having trouble finding what to write. Its IMDB entry and New York Times page threw me off. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• If he's adding stuff, that's good, but for the record, a removed speedy can be re-added if it still qualifies as CSD (this still does as of my comment). Only prods should not be re-added, but sent to afd instead. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: It's empty and a test article. That's a quick one. The author wants to keep it, but he's not willing to actually write a single word? Well, that's not really something we can address. Geogre 04:06, 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. Grandmasterka 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2006 Hawaiian Earthquake

Approximately six thousand earthquakes of this magnitude occur each year (~ sixteen per day). The author indicates that the source states most earthquakes near Hawaii occur near the Big Hawaii Island instead of Oahu, but that alone shouldn't make the quake worthy of its own article. With no damage and no injuries resulting from this earthquake, it's not significantly more notable than other quakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article acknowledges that there were no injuries or deaths resulting from the earthquake. While blinds rattled and floors shook, there appears to have been little property damage see [4]. It was too small to trigger a tsunami. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It should be kept because even though there were no injuries, it is a rare feat, and should not be deleted. Hello32020 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. On the one hand, Wikipedia isn't paper, and the idea that we would include an event only if someone died is appalling; lives surely were touched even if there were no deaths. On the other hand, it appears there isn't really much to mention here (yet?). There's an attempt at notability that isn't terribly notable. So I'm a bit flummoxed. Jacqui^★ 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The vast majority of earthquakes are not notable, and this one is no exception. Crabapplecove 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Well as Jacqui M said on above, this can be in Wikipedia because This one is important like 1906 Sanfrancisco Earthquake and Hurricanes. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:38 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't rare for that area. Not really worth sending to Wikinews. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An earthquake is an earthquake. If it was given an individual day date in its name I'd probably vote for deletion, but it was given a more broad, monthly name. That, although flimsy, is my argument for keep. Black-Velvet 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, why is this event asserted notable? Because it was in a less than expected place? Hmm, well why would that be interesting? ... What is the larger topic? Earthquakes in/around Hawaii. There's no such article. Seismic activity? Nope. A couple mentions of earthquakes/seismism in Mauna Loa and Hilo, Hawai'i, but nothing on the topic of which this article says the event was notable because it was different than the norm. Where is that norm mentioned? Speaking of which, where is this article linked from? Nowhere. I'd vote for merge, as a one-liner somewhere, but there's nowhere to merge to. Shenme 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing especially notable happened BECAUSE of this one quake, so why give it a listing itself? rootology 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Include further discussion of significance or Delete. Is this an indication that the magma chamber, pipes and vents are shifting in a way significant to scientific understanding of the phonomena fro Volcanoes? Has it been subject of a scientific article? Why should we include this -- except as part of a list if the list has merit? And this from a pretty strong inclusionist. Williamborg (Bill) 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tariqabjotu. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete earthquakes, like schools, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 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. If you wish to preserve the POV in amber somewhere, I'll copy that part of the text for you. Grandmasterka 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Ricci

Vanity. Started and mostly written by Bob Ricci. Fails WP:MUSIC, I think. This might be the second nomination. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Unsigned, distributed by the website, and estimated fan base is not the same thing as sales estimates. Parody artists have a lot of trouble, I know, and a lot of Dr. Demento sorts of artists can indeed have huge fan bases with no contract, but unless we have some method of verification, both WP:AUTO and WP:MUSIC apply. Geogre 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:39 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Amazon.com has his two albums for sale, and as much as I'd like to dismiss this article as vanity, there's no shortage of vain musical artists. Black-Velvet 07:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity is not so much the issue, notability is. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking charted albums, and not having multiple non-trivial articles written about him by third parties. The fact that he has albums for sale does not lend itself to notability either, since anyone with a CD-burner can have an album for sale. Tychocat 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom rootology 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I found third parties writting about this musician as part of the 3,430 ask.com hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Query: Did you add the information to the article and rewrite enough that voters should look again to re-evaluate their votes? Geogre 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, I was merely doing some fact checking, if you would like me to do so, I will post the relevent sources to the talk page or this disscussion here. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found the article interesting, and just what I was looking for. I see no reason for it to be deleted unless someone else has something better to put up first, and then it may as well just be editted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.39.202 (talk • contribs) - first edit since November. BlueValour 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. The comment 'his exciting and funny live performances as well as his “ingenious and hilarious” lyrical compositions' should be preserved in amber in case anyone asks for an example of POV! BlueValour 02:09, 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 keep. Whether or not we all agree with their inclusion, there are a significant number of TV-episode articles on Wikipedia. The consensus of the community, thus far, has been to include Family Guy related articles. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Has a Shadow

Cruft. Is entirely original research (no refrences or links). The opening paragraph is mostly made up of incomplete sentences. Among other things, which I will add as the AFD goes along. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:CITE. It has informal statements; uses "the guys" instead of names or a better pronoun for example. And thats about all I can think of. Unfortunately, most episode summaries are worse, so depending on how this goes, I might have to list the uncited articles for AFD. (No this is not a prank, no I don't hate Family Guy, no i'm not crazy).-- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 01:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep against my actual wishes: I don't think there should be episode articles at all, for any TV series. However, that battle was lost a long time ago. Since we let the bleaters in, we can't kick this one out for being better than the usual run. The show has a huge viewership and additional significance. Geogre 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant to put this on AfD as a test of sorts: if this article (which breaks 2 of the Big Three policies (others even break NPOV)) can be deleted for not following policy, then so can many other policy-breaking, terrible cruft articles. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, you'd be better off launching a new discussion as an aside on the deletion policy's talk page or at the Pump. The problem is that doing a query this way wouldn't lead to a real ruling anyway, and certainly not consensus. Folks would begin complaining pretty loudly if there were serial nominations without consensus. Geogre 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I'm just not sure where/how. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep, Geogre has it right on ths one. Articles for episodes of notable TV shows are allowed. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, deletion of articles isnt entirely based on notability. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I didn'tread your post correctly. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 07:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't get me wrong, I loathe Family Guy, almost as much as The Simpsons. But the article must stay according to policy. Black-Velvet 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Err, what? "must stay"? Bollocks to that! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, where is the policy saying this must stay? -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Geogre. I don't see anything about this article that makes it worse than the hundreds (thousands?) of TV-episode articles we already have. I suggest if Chris has a particular problem with it, he clean it up :-) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We delete articles that can't be cleaned up, not ones that have problems. Precendent says episodes of popular TV shows get their own pages. Ace of Sevens 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ace of Sevens. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Family Guy episodes have already been AfD'd twice, and kept both times. This article, in particular, is certainly not a great article, but it's incredibly hard to have references and citations for a synopsis of an episode of a television show. I doubt there are many reliable sources that deal with individual TV episodes. The article is certainly incredibly notable (the premiere episode of one of the most well-known TV shows in the world), and whatever isn't up to par can be easily cleaned up. -- Kicking222 17:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Well, if there aren't enough reliable sources for televison articles, then they are not verifiable... Verifiability is policy. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Checking the archives, the same nominator put Family Guy episodes up for AfD less than a month ago- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter's_Got_Woods. Not to start an argument, but why, Chris, is this necesary? -- Kicking222 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah... my memorey slips sometimes. I didn't think that debate worked out becuase I had someone keep telling me that the episode itself is a reliable source. I said that was original research, becuase you can't look at a tree and write an article on it... thats OR for sure. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, that isn't original research. See WP:OR. It says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." So using primary sources is fine. What you can't do is original analysis. SO you can source a plot summary to the episode itself. You just can't say, for instance, that an episode is a fan favorite without a source. Ace of Sevens 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Really? So I can write an article on the tree outside my window just by looking at it? 66.82.9.63 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC) _{This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in}
• Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It's a TV show synopsis, are we starting a campaign to get ride of a monstrous amount of content from Wikipedia now related to television? We're building an encyclopedia without physical limits, this is fine, just needs copyediting and work. Bad deletion nom... rootology 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - That tree-example of Chris got me thinking. He's right. Link TV Tome IMDb and the official site at least but only if they serve as evidence to things stated in article, and because I doubt they will Trivia and References must go. COME ON people!! That Hitler - Holocaust thing is terrible and ultimately uncited (and "uncitable"). Goofs can stay (assuming by good faith that they could be true). But than what remains? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per George above. Adelord 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Kicking222 above. Spongesquid 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Howdy. I'll try to be brief, but such a comment usually means the opposite so...yeah. Ahem. Sourcing is good; We all know that. However, ultimately, the sources are also just as important. You cannot, for example, source a whole article with a fansite—unless the article is about the fansite, of course—and yes, the tree article would be original research unless you can prove your findings. You cannot just say "I've got wood". We'll need pictures and location varification. I digress. Sources, largely, are a form of media. Rarely Multi, but then again, look at Shin MegaMan DS. Okay. Television is a source, as stated above. It's not infallible, but we're not talking about Natural male enhancement or something. We're talking about a popular televised program. If we polled all the Family Guy fans on Wikipedia, they'd vouched for the factual accuracy of this article. That should say something. Futhermore, look at comics and comic books. Now, honestly, aside from the medium itself, what source could be used which details the exploits of such featured article topics as Superman and Batman? Hmmm? Thought so. Same thing here. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Geogre and existing precedent. It would be nice if these episode articles were better referenced. Yamaguchi先生 09:36, 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valery Baranov

Obscure biographical stub - no other page references this one, and the details provided are scant, uncertain and unsourced. Either someone can make it relevant to other pages on Wikipedia, or make it valuable as an article that stands by itself, otherwise I think it is a good candidate to be deleted. Moonshiner 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clean up and tag for expansion: This is a pretty important fellow. If he can make it to my memory through the BBC World Service, he has to have a fairly high profile. Geogre 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand [5] Dlyons493 Talk 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep expansion is possible Avala 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Russian (I'm sure lots of local media has covered him). Just because it's not covered in Western media isn't a reason to dump; just needs expansion. Fine stub. rootology 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rootology, he is covered in Western media, if not in American media very much. The original author, though, did us absolutely no favors by writing something this rudimentary, so to speak. Geogre 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless you think that Stonewall Jackson also deserves to be removed. Jackson was also only a corps commander. Jackson also only fought in a local civil clash in a country then of little signicance on the world stage. And Jackson's wounds came when he was fragged by his own troops (a less auspicious end that Baranov's). I know, I know, too much sarcasm; but let's be a little less first world centric and at least acknowledge the second world exists. This kind of article should NOT get an AfD nomination. Williamborg (Bill) 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I should have gone to your userpage before I wrote the above. My apologies for the first-world centric remark. But now I'm really puzzled. Why would a Baltic Russian suggest a Russian General was unimportant?
• Keep per rootology. Hektor 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:39, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Grass Don't Grow On White Snow

poetry book written last year by redlinked poet. Ingvaldsen+"Green grass" gives six non wiki google hits none of them about this book. only things linking here are two redirects with different capitalisations - otherwise an orphan. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This fails to assert it's importance, also it only has 1 hit on Yahoo, and I am not even sure if it is about the book.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable book by non-notable poet. The Yahoo hit is a Wikipedia mirror. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable orphan. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, nn. Øyvind Ingvaldsen himself doesn't have an article on Norwegian wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: As Stephen Spender said, "Writing a poem and waiting for a response is like dropping a rose petal down a well and waiting for a splash." Poets don't get a lot of attention. That leaves us in really dire straits if we want to tell the famous from the vain, so the requirement of the article to offer verification is even more vital with poets. In this case, we can find no trace of author or book, and the title is such an obvious metaphor that the contents of the book aren't very promising. Geogre 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: And that's if we take things very seriously. The name of the poet sounds like a joke, and the title is a pretty danged idiomatic one for someone getting translated. Norwegian has "funny" double negatives? (The whole thing looks like a basic joke.) Geogre 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn rootology 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with the caveat that we may restore it in a few years. I'd direct the reader to this site which may by Øyvind Ingvaldsen's user page. With luck this work of poetry will win the The Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature and later the The Nordic Council's Literature Prize. Poets should be encouraged! Øyvind, when you achieve recognition in a few years I'd be honored if you'd let me write your article and return this entry about your seminal work. Best wishes Williamborg (Bill) 21:29, 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 Deleted by UninvitedCompany through WP:OTRS, author request. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)br>

[edit] Gallery North Carmel

Vanity/advertisement article of a questionably notable art gallery with detailed bios for every featured artist (whom are also questionably notable). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: since notibility is in question, I went ahead and checked several search engines. Google got 64 hits, Yahoo had [53 hits, and MSN had 6 hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Advertisement, non-notable. I find no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability, just a lot of calendar listings. I also note the original author is Aaron Kreitman, and one of the current featured artists at the Gallery is Barbara Kreitman, lending itself to the vanity concern. Tychocat 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Off-topic comment: Thanks for doing all that research, guys. Hope my laziness didn't cause you too much trouble. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:01, 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. These can easily be mentioned in the main article, if notable enough, or in individual articles per SliceNYC, if you wish to recreate this info. Grandmasterka 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Daytona 500 broadcasters

Carcruft. As neato as the tabled charts are, this list would be just as easily served by a category. In fact, there is already a Category for Motorsport announcers.Crabapplecove 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A mention of Ken Squier and Ned Jarrett should probably be made in the Daytona 500 article's TV section. If articles are ever made for individual runnings of the Daytona 500, the announcers can and should be mentioned. SliceNYC 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but add the information to individual Daytona 500 articles should they be created. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Daytona 500 Avala 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daytona 500. (Failing that, I prefer keep to delete without merging.) Significant in that context, not an encyclopedic topic on its own. Otherwise we'd quickly be stuck with "List of ... broadcasters" for every event under the sun. Agree with SliceNYC that this info should get split to each year's race subarticle, if someone writes ones that survive AfD. Barno 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis is an article with good info. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged with Daytona 500. Chaz 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there is a perfectly good Television section in the Daytona 500 article. Not a merge because this is indicriminate information gathering for the sake of it. A couple of comments on the major commentators would suffice. BlueValour 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without merge The Daytona 500 article is already large, so do not merge. WP is not trivia. The broadcasters article can list which Daytona 500s they have announced. --Royalbroil 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indianapolis 500 winning numbers

While I appreciate the great effort of original research someone went to in compiling this indiscriminate list of numbers, is it notable to anyone but the numerologically obsessed? And how do we know any of it is true without sources? Crabapplecove 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, with winner's number added to List of Indianapolis 500 winners. SliceNYC 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, a shining example of indiscriminate. SubSeven 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SubSeven. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's trivia at best. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• A damn fine collection of numbers, but it gets a delete from me per the nomination. R.E. Freak 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trivia. —Khoikhoi 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm surprised someone can't quote Nostradamus to predict the next year's winner. Vegas, baby! Carlossuarez46 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. *drew 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of automobile model nameplates with a discontiguous timeline

Carcruft. Does not establish notability of subject or reason for existence. Crabapplecove 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Not linked from but a couple other articles. Mentioned in another Afd, perhaps instructively. Shenme 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also original research. I guess there's nothing people won't submit to WP. Has anyone else seen the issue of The Onion which parodies (?) WP as celebrating the Day of Independence on July 25? Knowing what people submit to WP, I had a hard time laughing. Tychocat 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR, pointless, etc. Dlyons493 Talk 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is pretty darn indiscriminate. eaolson 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. I added the notice about insufficient context over 2 months ago and I am still none-the-wiser. --HappyDog 22:19, 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 keep. No Guru 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament and 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament - all of the venues for the 2008 tournament have already been selected, and are listed on the official web site.[6] (scroll down to the "FUTURE SITES 2008" section). Thus, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply on this particular article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral on 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament as I have not yet found information to verify the venues for the 2009 tournament. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystalballcruft. I have been bold and aded the 2009 tournament. 2010 and 2011 are already PRODded. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it - I was in the process of listing it. I prodded these (and the 2008 and 2009 womens ones) and the other ones still prodded. Viridae^Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Prods removed with comment. See below. --DarkAudit 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • All now nominated for deletion. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sites for this tournament and others through 2011 are already selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, is frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all crystalballcruft, including the aforementioned 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Crabapplecove 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly there is verifiable and relevent information available for this event. Maxamegalon2000 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too far in the future to keep objectivly informant, at least for an article. Somerset219 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since venues have been selected. SliceNYC 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep, much information is available and there are pages about future Olympics per JJay. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:40 (UTC)
• Keep both and stubify, there is known information here, and these events aren't that far in the future (unlike, say, the 2030 FIFA World Cup). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all sites selected/verified Nate 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is likely to be of interest to sports fans, and contains verifiable content about what has presumably already been arranged. Two years is not very far ahead for organising a major event, so it is hardly speculative. Jll 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: In 2007 college basketball will turn professional. You don't believe me? Why not? Oh, right: it's a prediction! That's why we don't have articles about things that don't exist: they're predictions, no matter how likely. Geogre 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is not true. We have many, many articles on future events. This is entirely appropriate and WP:Not even states: Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. --JJay 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, but it's wrong to say that. An article on a future event like the 2008 election should and could only be about current campaigning for it (which is in-the-news and therefore not appropriate) or a line saying, "We in the US plan to have one" (which is empty). Otherwise, we ask authors to decide for themselves the difference between sure-things and possibles, and the youngster can swear that a mention on aint-it-cool-news.com of a Rug Rats IV movie is sufficient for a full article. Geogre 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• I was merely pointing out that we have hundreds if not thousands of articles on the issues surrounding future events. The topic is authorized by policy. You are certainly entitled to want to delete these articles. But your original statement regarding "predictions" was misleading. --JJay 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I'm sorry if I seemed belligerant. I won't make appeals to "I remember when we used to delete all these things" or anything like that, and I do bow to precedent when it's strong enough, but I think this one was wrongheaded. We can't blame authors for violating the crystal ball stricture when we allow so many things like this. I'm more absolutist than others, I suppose, but I'm just one "vote." Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the venues set is not a prediction. It is verifiable fact. --DarkAudit 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NOt to be picky, but it is still a prediction. It amounts to an agreement, and it is very likely to be honored, but there were events scheduled for spring of 2006 in the Superdome, too. Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By that argument, the entire notion of 'future sporting events' should be null and void as crystalballism. The Giants have an agreement to play the Pirates tomorrow afternoon, but who's to say what may happen in the intervening hours beforehand? --DarkAudit 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not a good example... there's a lot of controversy around China's politics with regards to the event, and it's the next Olympic event. The NCAA tournament hasn't generated that much controversy (and it's not the next NCAA championship). --ColourBurst 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as substantial information about venues already exists. Vickser 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a useful article with factual details about a notable event. Roswell native 14:39, 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. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - all of the venues for the 2008 tournament have already been selected, and are listed on the official web site.[7] (scroll down to the "FUTURE SITES 2008" section). Thus, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply on this particular article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The sites are selected. There won't be much more information on this year's tournament until the season starts. --DarkAudit 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. SliceNYC 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments in other noms on same topic. --JJay 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The women are also going to go pro, and the universities will get rid of all sports programs. Don't believe me? Crystal ball? Exactly: I think these future events are very likely, but there is nothing to say about plans. Geogre 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The olympics is held every four years. This is held every year - you will notice that I didnt nominate the 2007 one. Viridae^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's enough non crystal ball information for an article. Vickser 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful article, notable event. Roswell native 14:40, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament

I do not see how a sporting event to be held three years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. They have even copied the first line (at least) from the 2008 article including the same dates! Viridae^Talk 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The site for the Final Four is already selected. Since this tournament is played at on-campus sites, the season has to play out before more information can be added. The same can be said for this season's tournament. --DarkAudit 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zzyzx. Restore the article when the rest of the venues are selected. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the other noms on the same topic. Future sporting events are not ridiculous. They are highly encyclopedic and should be covered here. Furthermore, three years is nothing compared to the Year 10,000 problem. I also note that the nom's point about an editing issue is not relevant to a discussion of the article's underlying validity. --JJay 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing exists, including the plans. Geogre 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2008 olympics is the next one. This isnt. In fact those that I have nominated have varied between 2 and 5 tournaments ahead - for the olympics that would be up to the 2032 olympics! Viridae^Talk 22:38, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shogyo

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article will not expand past its current length, and use of the word "vocational high school" would be much better than using a foreign language term. Belongs in a J-E dictionary, not an English encyclopaedia. Bueller 007 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a stub. It can expand, given that someone with better fluency in Japanese can hop over to the Japanese wikipedia page and translate the info there [8]. That article is quite substantial. A shogyo is NOT a vocational school in any sense. It is a particular type of school, not just a dictionary definition, anymore than High school is, and worthy of an article.--Nobunaga24 04:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Temporary merge to Secondary education in Japan and request translation of ja:商業高等学校 on Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/Japanese (Unless article is expanded during the course of this AfD.) --Kunzite 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will undertake to do this translation now. Will update once done. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Abandoned; real life presses and the article requires a fair bit of knowledge of Japanese business terms that I don't possess. Maybe someone else will give it a shot. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article title should be translated also. The word "shogyo" is a popular short form (as the article notes) but the encyclopedia article should have a full English title. Fg2 08:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/redirect Keep as a stub or rename and redirect the Japanese version. rootology 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. The Japanese article is on ja.wikipedia.org. It's not plausable to rename/redirect. --Kunzite 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - Someone should translate the rest (the whole) of the Japanese article. It seems to me that its longer and not just list of faculties. Maybe it could become more encyclopedic and notable then. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, for example by translating from Japanese article or by adding new, encyclopedic content. Japanese article is formatted as a list, but that is not a problem. If the translator doesn't like lists, it can be formatted as text. Fg2 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This article might have more potential than you think. --Gray Porpoise 18:29, 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 no consensus. Before you start to sharpen your knives, I will explain: the only valid deletion reason I see here in WP:NOR and on that there is no consensus. I find that the information is mostly verifiable if not now verified. As such, the lists are not beyond salvage, and any POV could be cured with effort. Overall, I find that WP is better off having this than having nothing at all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of automobile model and marque oddities

This is actually several different lists masquerading as one, bundled under a POV title: there's actually really nothing "odd" about most of the vehicles listed here, nor is there anything really odd about the section concepts, like the fact that some cars are not produced for the open retail market. Crabapplecove 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - there are interesting facts in that article.Avala 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, but not a reason to keep this specific collection of "interesting facts" by itself. I freely admit to knowing almost precisely nothing about cars, but would it be worthwhile to move the interesting facts to articles on the relevant cars or their manufacturers? BigHaz 13:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I found this collection of information quite interesting. There is certainly no specific reason to delete it, and I fail to understand the complaint about these lists being bundled together - they would be very stubby if they were all separated, and probably deleted for that very reason. Bob 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there is a specific reason to delete; it breaches WP policy. This is policy and not a guideline. It is a fundamental principle on which this encyclopeadia is being built. On AfD we are expected to uphold WP policies or there is no point in having them. BlueValour 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the title cries out it is WP:POV. If interesting enough it should be mentioned in the individual articles or merged to Marque and a category used. Yomangani 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what's an "oddity" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bob. The guy who did that obviously made a lot of research and it is quite interesting to read. Hektor 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although I was "the guy who did that" originally, I by no means am responsible for the majority of the list as it stands, indicating a fair amount of support and interest from other editors. I see no reason to delete it, and the information is ancillary to, and supportive of, the article for marque and others. Perhaps the title is POV and could be changed, I had not thought of that. --SFoskett 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if it is kept any editor may delete most of the content anyway as OR. BlueValour 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A clear case of what WP is not. To address the comments above about it being interesting (and directed to many other AfD as well) there is a major difference between what is interesting and what is important. Important belongs in an encyclopedia; interesting does not.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is four-square, down the middle OR. It is a clear violation of WP policy. Period. BlueValour 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or perhaps temporarily move to somebody's user space and later to a less "serious" site. There are numerous legitimate reasons why the "list" should not exist by WP standards, but as it might be interesting to some readers, it could be published somewhere else. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – slightly reluctantly, because it's well-intentioned and interesting in a quirky way, and I'd hope to see it on another website somewhere. But it includes lots of wooly statements and opinion, not suitable here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately. There is some good information, but it can be said by the title that the article is too POV for Wikipedia. --Gray Porpoise 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV title for starters which is usually indicative of inherent POV within the article (although in this case it doesn't seem too bad); there seems to be no flow or structure to the various sections, and despite the number of factoids in the article, I can see only one cited reference. It does seem to violate the WP:NOT policy pertaining to "an indiscriminate collection of information". --DeLarge 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of dubious entries to be sure, but fixable. Fix, don't delete, that's what I always say. No bullies/gangs. --matador300 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• See above. BlueValour 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Yomangani. This information can't be verified or mantained. Gwernol 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, it can. The multi-marque models, unrelated models and identical models in the same market can be verified by the various yearly Automobil Revue Katalogs (published by Swiss publication Automobil Revue and distributed at the Geneva Auto Show, as well as through the Auto Motor und Sport annuals, Global Auto Index and Histomobile. The racing homologation specials require more digging to find the articles published in various automotive publications throughout Europe and the information therein regarding limited production models and the entry of those models in international motorsport competitions, as well as older FIA yearbooks where regulations mention the minimum number of cars required for granting them homologation. --Pc13 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I agree, the information is 100% verifiable, though there are always some doubts as to the completeness of the lists. The valid reason for deletion is WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bravada, talk - 07:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the info can be salvaged in the respective articles. The homologation specials list can be moved to Homologation. I've moved the homologation list to my personal page's subpage. --Pc13 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty much per Yomangani, it is not Wikipedia's decision to decide what is odd and what isn't. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as a verifiable future event. Turnstep 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament

I do not see how a sporting event to be held four years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deprodded so listed here. Viridae^Talk 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Given that it's an annual event, four years in the future starts to look like a crystal ball. BigHaz 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as deprodder. The tournament venues have been selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystalballcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and then delete 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics also. Crabapplecove 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the 2010 tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Venue information here: http://tulanegreenwave.cstv.com/genrel/070606aaa.html --DarkAudit 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stubify per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. The venues have been selected and verified. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article is all the proof needed that the venues have been selected. Nate 10:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't arguing proof. I was arguing point. What is ths point of keeping these as their own seperate article when they are so far into the future? Viridae^Talk 10:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is just too far in the future, nothing solid yet. rootology 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: All this is is a plan, and the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee. Geogre 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have 2008 Olympics, 2012 Olympics, 2016 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering this is an annual event keeping this one is like having an article on the 2028 olympics! Viridae^Talk 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major sporting events with chosen venues are a definite keep. Vickser 22:31, 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 keep as valid future sporting event with verifiable information. Turnstep 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament

I do not see how a sporting event to be held five years into the future deserves a page. The {{future sport}} template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deprodded so listed here. Viridae^Talk 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as deprodder. The tournament venues have been selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and then delete 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics also. Crabapplecove 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship until the venues for the first four rounds of the 2011 tournament have been verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as indicated by Zzyzx11. SliceNYC 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zzyzx11. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ok, this one is even sillier. 2011? Anyone want me to make to the article for the 2144 Olympic games to get ahead of the curve? rootology 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: All this is is a plan, and the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee. (I really suspect people who want to reserve "authorship" of an article but can't say anything about it.) Geogre 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have 2008 Olympics, 2012 Olympics, 2016 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Having the 2011 tournament is like having one on the 2032 olympics. Viridae^Talk 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zzyzx11 too. Could use a verifiable place of venue first. Kevin_b_er 22:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We've got the 2018 FIFA World Cup, after all. Vickser 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect until further details as per User:Zzyzx11. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zzyzx11 too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Bigtop 20:54, 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 keep the cleaned up version, as it addresses the earlier concerns. Turnstep 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election

Even without invoking the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article is nothing but unsourced speculation, opinions, POV and OR, and at this early stage, that's all it really can ever be. Delete until there's actually something to report here. Crabapplecove 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: article has relevant information pertaining to a possible election; does not speculate of any outcome. Somerset219 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Political speculations about a future event: "mentioned by some as a possible candidate", "He is said to be considering", "has been frequently discussed", "has been mentioned by some", "has been the subject of ", "has not ruled out running". This is speculation, just as Potential winners at the 2008 Academy Awards. Obviously, an article about official candidates who has accepted nomination would be fine. Thuresson 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per the above. When candidates firmly commit to running or not running, it will merit mention on 2008 U.S. presidential election. SliceNYC 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unbelievable. How is it that the nature of an encyclopedia article appears to be so poorly understood by so many contributors? —Encephalon 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with United States presidential election, 2008. Until someone formally announces, they don't need their own article. And there's already a list of third party candidates on this page. Chadlupkes 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal-ballism and speculation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom for OR, crystal-ballism, POV. Tychocat 09:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a blog. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete as speculation. Ace of Sevens 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Changing to Keep The page seems to have been fixed up nicely. Ace of Sevens 23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with your reasons to delete the page. For that reason I went through and drastically changed the site to include only names of candidates that ARE running for their party, or candidates that have viable sources for their rumor (they told so-and-so that they are considering). I removed anyone that I could not find a souce for. Including even Ralph Nader (I totally expect him to be back up later). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it was getting to the point that anyone with a name could be added. The arguments here are right. If the page can not be used for serious wikipedian documentation of ongoing campiagns and events, then it is not worthy of wikipedia. SargeAbernathy 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you do that it's no longer potential candidates, it's actual candidates and just has an inaccurate namespace. Ace of Sevens 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You're confused here. This is for potential candidates in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2008. The people listed here are saying they are going to run, yes. But for their PARTY'S nominiation. Just like Democrats and Republicans all third parties must go through a process where the main party elects one person to run. So the people are ACTUAL Primary candidates ... but only POSSIBLE U.S 2008 election candidates. Furthermore this list even indludes names that there is only sourcable rumor to their primary run as well. I removed anyone that had no source SargeAbernathy

• Delete: I am a potential third party candidate, and so's my dog. There is no exclude criterion here. Geogre 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: this is basically a list of natural-born citizens of the USA who will be 35 years old, etc. in 2008. Not me, and Geogre's dog, either. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as gross crystalballism. Would anyone have predicted John Anderson two years before his run? Perot two years before his first one? No. This is just unsupported speculation, and too many things can change between now and then. Fan-1967 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete potential candidates= crystal balling + WP:OR + lots of guessing. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - recreate it in 2008 when all these stuff get fixed and become verifiable. Just because a party wants to compete in two years' time it doesn't necessarly mean he will. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hold on. Why don't we just delete everyone who isn't running and rename it to "Third Party Primary Candidates of the U.S. 2008 Presidential Election", and do the same for the other two pages? SargeAbernathy

Which I just did. The page is now Third party primary candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election, and lists only those people with actual campaign pages. A small paragraph detailing a bit of speculation is still there, but can be removed.SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I also added "these people are actively" in the first paragraph to disassociate the page from crystalball predictions. These are current campaigns, not rumored ones. SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election are both valid pages that are not designed to predict candidates and winners, but to inform about the announcing of candidates, and the not insignificant discussion surrounding the potential candidates and perceived frontrunners. Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election needs to be better maintained, but is a neccessary balance to the pages on major parties. Eliminating the more detailed coverage afforded to third party candidates and movements unreasonably favors the major parties. Deleting this article immediately places wikipedia into a POV stance. I don't disagree that better sources and a more rigorous standard for inclusion are needed, but the fact that an article needs work doesn't qualify it for AfD. --Aranae 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This argument has been used before, that it's POV or "unfair" to only cover the parties and candidates that are well-known, but let's face it: Wikipedia is not the League of Women Voters candidate guide, and does not exist to publicize or promote unknown parties and candidates. Of the five parties listed, most people have only even heard of two, and very few have heard of the candidates even for those two. The independent candidates are even more obscure. This looks to me like a list of non-notable people, in addition to the crystalballism of guessing whether they'll matter at all. Fan-1967 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep/Move Back While the page needs to have more consistent maintanence than it has in the past, it is both encyclopediac in itself and necessary to prevent POV bias towards the 2 major American political parties. This does not mean that "anyone and his dog" can be listed, rather, people who are considering a serious bid for a political party nomination. Also, as this article's move was improper (taking place during an AFD and without concensus), I propose it be moved back.--Tim4christ17 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I should have asked for consensus. However, I feel that "potential" alludes to much to rumor and specualtion and that a clear definition about what the article is and what is going on NOW is needed for the title. If people want to change it back, go ahead. It should have been discussed, but since no one was acting on editing it ... I went after it. SargeAbernathy 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored it to its original location - pending the end of the AfD and a concensus on the name/location of this article AND its companion articles: Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. --Tim4christ17 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE This article has been moved and had major modifications since the AfD started. Please keep this in mind when discussing further. ---Tim4christ17 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. It's not crystal-ballism or speculation if they've already announced interest in running. And listing the candidates themselves is no more non-notable than the third parties they represent. Schi 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated in the nomination, the article is peppered with POV and OR. --Gray Porpoise 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's the POV? I don't see any opinions being expressed, only facts. Though they could use a little more sourcing... --Tim4christ17 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Changing to keep after rereading carefully. --Gray Porpoise 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Dan 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I would encourage anyone who hasn't looked at this page recently to look again. The cleanup is substantial, and to delete this page seems to imply that the Green Party, Constitution, Libertarian, et al aren't worthy of pages. (Fan-1967 only confirms my suspicion with his honest comment.) There are really obscure non-notable candidates. A candidate that gets 0.31% of the popular vote--thousands of thousands of thousands--is not a "non-notable person". Possible removal for the "Independents" section, as those listed tend less notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnostic Theism

This is a neologism and is subsequently a logical fallicy. Agnostics take no position on religion. it is not cited Somerset219 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as a self-labelled agnostic I get irritated when second-year philosophy majors tell me that I'm not "agnostic," I'm either "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist," or perhaps "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist." Still, I must concede that these terms are all used regularly in religious and philosophical discussions. It's most certainly not a neologism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a logical fallacy. Moveover, Google search gives a respectable result [9].__earth ^(Talk) 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An agnostic theist is one who disavows knowledge of God's existence but chooses to believe in God in spite of this. However, you need knowledge of him to form a belief. Agnostics ignore the question of theism until there is absolute proof. If you believe, your'e a theist, if you don't, your'e an atheist. If you don't know if god exists, then you don't believe in him. In other words; knowlegde, wether it's accurate or not, dictates belief. Thats why it doesn't make sense/ logical fallicy. Plus, google results wiki sources/ blogs. No credible sources. Somerset219 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In the old days, many believed that the world was flat, despite the fact that they didn't know it for sure. Hence, the page Flat Earth. The point it, while it's logical fallacy, it's a belief and logical fallacy itselt is not a reason fro deletion. __earth ^(Talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment You need knowledge of the concept of God, which is entirely different to knowledge that God exists. I know about concepts such as God and unicorns, but I don't know that they exist. I might still believe in them, anyway. Also, you are confusing different meanings of "Agnostic" - the sort who withholds belief is only one meaning of the term. Mdwh 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

comment please see belief; if you believe in something then you know it's true. If you don't know they exsist, then you don't believe in them. You are making a state of doubt, then stating that it's a positive assertion; that makes no sense. Somerset219 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Many people disagree. Many people have beliefs about things, even though they do not know it is true. Mdwh 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Whether the term makes sense or not, it is certainly commonly used. The article could use more citations, but the fact that it's used in George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, written in 1974 and pretty well known, shows that it's not a neologism. The paperback edition has a sales ranking of 11,150 at Amazon; it's a reasonably common book. AfD is not for debating the validity of a term, it's for debating the viability of an article. Philodespotos 05:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - agreed; for purposes of this AfD, the focus should be on whether or not the term exists, and it seems that it does so verifiably. Debate over any possible inherent fallacies in the term and its use should be saved for philosophy forums. If anything, more sources could be added, but I'd guess that some philosophy-oriented Wikipedians will have a pretty easy time coming up with some print sources. . Also see this Google Book search[10] which has T. H. Huxley attributing the term to first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, this book is used as a criticism against the term, he actually states the term does not make sense. Somerset219 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Philo. Also 470 google hits and 443 Yahoo hts (both set to english only and phrase). That is not bad at all considering that the term is not in popular culture. (just providing this to show that the term does exist).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though the article should have more references. -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Remember lack of references is not a reason to delete, (unless there are none to be found). Now if there were no references to be found, period, then delete is the correct option. Here, I know that references can be found, the philosophical types on wikipedia will have no problem doing so. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not about agnostics, but about a particular sort of theist. I've encountered several people like this, who believe in God (and are therefore theists) but claim that it is impossible to know anything about God (agnostic). It is a peculiarly irrational viewpoint, but they do exist. --StoatBringer 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The issue should not be about whether we think Agnostic theism is a "logical fallacy" or not. That is a POV, and if people nonetheless fit this description, it should not be discounted (I think many religious beliefs are a logical fallacy, but clearly that's not a reason to delete the articles!) The issue is notability and verifiability, of the term and/or the concept. Mdwh 11:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The prohibition on neologisms only applies in cases lacking a credible source, or dictionary definitions. And there are plenty of articles about supposed logical fallacies. Btyner 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment please define agnostic theist on google. all articles of agnostic theist are from blogs and Wikipedia's own sources. This term is used as an accurate philisophical term, and it's not. If its a religion or pop culture thing than it should be defined that way. Somerset219 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, google scholar gives 8 hits for this term, including one from the Journal of Religion. If academia has accepted this concept then who are we to question it? Btyner 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep If we deleted articles on religion because of logical fallacies, we'd have no articles on religion left. Stev0 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to agnosticism: Despite the fact that the term is used, it is used primarily as a species of agnosticism. Further, what it describes is a state of doubt rather than an active and positive philosophy. I think the subject is better understood, better found, and better discussed in the context of agnosticism in the 20th century. Geogre 20:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The issue of whether the term is logically inconsistent or not is totally irrelevant. It's widely used, therefore notable, and it's distinct enough from the beliefs of most people who identify as simply agnostic to deserve a separate article. Penelope D 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I was puzzled enough by the article that I wasn't going to vote until I read User:Stev0's comment above. Some how it reminded me of Halldór Laxness' quote, "All gods are equally good except the god that answers prayers, because he is nowhere." Which convinced me that Agnostic Theism is not an incredible concept (albeat difficult for my weak brain to encompass); if it is not utter nonsense, it warrants discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a long-standing theological position, and no less coherent than gnostic theism. It's also been associated with a wide range of influential thinkers, from Pascal to Maimonides. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is interesting in itself, though somewhat confused in places. Agnostic Theism may or may not be an active and positive(?) philosophy, but it is a philosophical position that is not unsuited to a deeper level of description than might be provided on the Agnosticism article. (Incidentally, agnostic theism is not necessarily a "state of doubt". The two may coincide, but one can be an agnostic theist who is certain of God's existence while recognising that there is insufficient justification - certainty is a psychological state, knowledge is not) --Atob 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article seems to represent a completely valid and existing stance. Star Ghost 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not everything in this world is logical, especially not peoples beliefs. This term is far from a neologism --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: article has many editors and adding more sources shouldn't be hard as many more edit it in future. Stephen B Streater 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But what’s up with User:Somerset219 making major deletions of the article's text while we are still discussing it here? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Peer Group

Seems to fail WP:BAND. The article admits they only ever released one song. Quite happy to be corrected on this though. Viridae^Talk 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Horribly fails WP:BAND (look at their "Gigography"). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not meet WP:BAND; also a good a mount of WP:OR and WP:POV in the writing (though that is more of a content issue). -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - passed WP:MUSIC "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The notable member is Peter Prescott (American musician). I suggest merge. --Royalbroil 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roderick cameron

County judges are below the notability bar. Fails Geogre's law. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a county judge does not inherently make you unworthy of a Wiki page but Judge Cameron himself fails to establish uniqueness or notability. 2nd-youngest active judge in Wisconsin at the time of appointment doesn't cut it. SliceNYC 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is my first attempt at submitting an entry, so I will not be hurt by any decision rendered on my efforts. I will make the case for keeping the entry as Judge Cameron presided over a case that found its way to the State Supreme Court and was named "Case of the Month" by the Wisconsin Court System. Peace be with you all.--Wonderfunk 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, Geogre's Law. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I am leery of blanket claims like "All x are/are not notable", since that leads to lengthy arguments of the "Are not!" "Are too!" variety. Sticking to policy issues, the article fails to establish notability under WP:BIO, for not having multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. The fact he had a case go to the State Supreme Court is not particularly notable since that happens a lot (it's why state supreme courts exist); and, at most, it makes him notable only in Wisconsin (not a bad thing, but the rulings obviously don't bother anyone outside of State lines). Congratulations on the "Case of the Month" award, but as I understand the nature of that award, it will always be awarded, so it's not exactly a particularly demanding criterion. Tychocat 09:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• weak Keep (note that this too fails Geogre's Law). If the article can be strengthened by more detail on why the initial ruling was noteworthy and why its being upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is also noteworthy then it warrants retention; but keep is conditioned on strengthening the article. And come on folks—Geogre's Law is like Moore's Law—it is empirical and not predictive—I presume we only cite it in humor and certainly not as a serious reason for tossing an article. Williamborg (Bill) 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I suppose it's graceless of me to mention my law, so I won't, but I'm honored to be in such august company. Yes, it is humorous and empirical and a statement of correlation, but it's also predictive, because any article at a miniscule last name can't stay there. In other words, the least we can do is move the article to a proper spelling, so we'd pretty much have to motion for merge and redirect to Roderick Cameron (which doesn't exist yet). I think judges can be significant enough, and especially those who manage to get publicity through their rulings. This particular article does not offer verifiable evidence yet of such. Therefore, I move to delete with absolutely no prejudice against a properly lodged and verifiably significant article at the proper location. Geogre 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Kinu. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuatagh

Notability/importance in question. Article has been A7'd before, however the author disputes this as it is a translation from another wiki. The original article is just as short, so I'm sending here for wider consensus. Ghits: [11] — NMChico24 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article fails to assert the importance of this group. Why is it any different from any other group of people. Has it done anything that would make it important? Also, I found the following: 129 google hits and 362 hits on Yahoo. both fairly low numbers (for a specific search for hits in the english language).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eagle was generous with Ghits, since out of the 125 only 25 were unique. Some nice photo blogs, but no non-trivial third-party articles about the group to establish notability. Article also written by kuatagh which looks like violation of WP:VAIN, and lack of citations therefore makes article look like Original Research. Tychocat 10:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry about my "generousity", I was using the alpha version of WikiVoter. It does the search engine checks automatically, I just tell where to put the results, and sometimes I have to tell it to use more specific search terms. So sorry about not checking for unique hits, and thanks for catching me!—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is without context, so it could be speedied as incomprehensible due to lack of context, but that wouldn't be my argument. There is nothing in the article that suggests that the group is actually achieving anything, except growth. As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for its own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Granted, he was talking about something else, but there is no notability asserted, and the article can't be understood. Geogre 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment FYI, Kuatagh is an alumni for our college in Malaysia called MRSM Kuantan. Probably one of you can edit for me please. Thank you. Regards, Kuatagh 04:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Too few too fictional. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:20, 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 Speedy Delete as reposted content. Yanksox 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wario the Quario

Supposedly an internet meme, "popular" and "circulated on myspace". Generates 3 unique GHits, 11 total outside Wikipedia. I generate more hits than that. Fan-1967 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. When I first saw this, I saw some value in it; so I think it is notable. --24.208.241.169 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I guess we should keep this since "Wario the Quario" almost gets 300 Yahoo hits. --Clarenceville Trojan | contact 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Above user is the article's author. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of course. Only 3 unique Ghits? Only 311 views on YouTube, including my visit to see how many views there were? Certainly notability is far from established. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY Delete, all of my above reasons still stand, but this has also been deleted three times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wario the Quario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wario the Quario (2nd nomination)). One of the deletions was apparently a speedy, making this the 3rd AfD on this topic. Consensus each of those times was that it failed notability, and I see nothing here to show that this has changed. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per HumbleGod. Danny Lilithborne 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy del per HumbleGod. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. It's still not a notable meme. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:14, 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 speedy close. Let me count the ways ...

1. AfD is not the place to go if you want to propose a merge.
2. You can perform a merge yourself, anyway. Be bold!
3. Once the article has been merged, it cannot be deleted. No, really, it can't. Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL; using content without performing the bare minimum that Wikipedia's guidelines require (in this case, redirecting to the merged article) is theft.

In summary: don't nominate an article for deletion because you want it merged, and don't ask for the deletion of the source of a merged article's content. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sotsugyou

Wikipedia is not a (Japanese-English) dictionary. Article merely translates the word sotsugyou and goes on to describe (in detail) its use in a Japanese TV program that is little known in the English-speaking community. Suggest merging the TV-related info into the show's page itself and deleting this article. Bueller 007 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The English-language Wikipedia isn't supposed to be limited to topics from the English-speaking community; that's an example of systemic bias. Crystallina 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but I'm not sure that that justifies having this article separate to the show it relates to. I'd suggest a merge of any non-duplicate content to the article on the show and the deletion of this article. BigHaz 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but move to Sotsugyō per Hepburn romanization required by WP:MOS-JA. A couple citations from reliable sources would be nice; will hunt for some in the morning if no one has provided any by that time. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:28, 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 - there were two sides saying non-notable and notable. I didn't see any attempt documented in the article to substantiate notability, which I feel tipped the balance.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go for your life

Prodded for non-notability, de-prodded without any explanation. So little content that I'm tempted to use {{db-empty}}, but just enough that I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy. It is, however, pretty much just a glorified external link. There's nothing here that would be any kind of loss if someone wanted to re-create the article later with some actual content. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the phrases we should never hear on AfD is "de-prodded without any explanation". It doesn't have any relevance to your rationale for deletion, and only serves to increase the perception in the minds of other Wikipedians that de-prodding articles is a Bad Thing, when in fact it's one of the cornerstones of the process. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But deprodding without addressing the concerns felt by the user who prodded it is never going to achieve anything. Viridae^Talk 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it will. For the person who thought the article wasn't worth deleting ... it won't be deleted (at least, not by PRODding). Voila! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While a lack of explanation is not reason enough to go ahead and delete something, I don't agree that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I see "failed prod" in AfD nominations on a regular basis. If an article was de-prodded, then I want to know why so I can take that into account when "voting" in the AfD. It's easier if the nominator gives me that info here so I don't have to dig through the history (which, depending on the article and the edit summaries, might take plenty of digging indeed). If an article is de-prodded for a stated reason, I'll include that in my AfD nomination, too. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we see it in AfD nominations all the time — and that's a Bad Thing. The general atmosphere is not so much, "I think other AfDers would be interested to know why the PROD tag was removed, so they can share in the de-prodder's indignance", but more along the lines of, "some utter PRICK removed the tag, so I'm forced to waste all y'all's time with an AfD nomination. If we delete this article, we'll teach him a lesson!" I appreciate your bone fides here, and I agree with you that if the de-PRODder gave a reason for removing the tag it should be noted somewhere in the AfD discussion. However, if it's removed without discussion then it's not particularly relevant — and we see far too many annoyed nominations complaining about de-PRODders. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable campaign. -TrackerTV 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is quite notable and quite prominent in Australian media. It is a rebirth of of the Life. Be in it. campaign. Viridae^Talk 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't merge and redirect make more sense at this point, then? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The campaigns are seperate. The State govt has just started up a new campaign using the premise of the old (what I meant by rebirth) Viridae^Talk 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, you meant "premise". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • For once we agree on something /cheer -- 153.2.246.32 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Every state/region etc. has an advertising campaign for one thing or another. I can't think of any reason why we should include articles on those campaigns here. At best, merge to article for the region. --JJay 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable campaign in Australia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not much more to say about it --Astrokey44 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There seem to be enough material about this campaign. It was associated with promotion of the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as above. Especially agree with JJay that there are many ad campaigns by governments all around the world, and there needs to be justification for including a campaign. Many of them have slogans, and most are not encyclopedically notable. I don't see any special reason to include this one - it is not even a national campaign. Bwithh 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, allow for organic expansion. -- 153.2.246.32 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable campaign at this point.--Peta 04:42, 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 keep. I think it's pretty clear what the end result is; let's save the eventual closer (and any bandwagon-jumpers) a bit of work, eh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 90

Every case in volume 90 is a red link. This is listcruft. TrackerTV 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wasn't there an AfD listing of a similar list of cases a while back? BigHaz 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. On second thoughts, change mine to keep in light of the precedent (I'd strike it out, but can't figure out how to do that quickly). BigHaz 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Click "edit this page" to see what I did. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I thought I'd tried that myself, but knowing me I must've stuffed up the syntax somewhere in there. BigHaz 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We just went through this with volume 35 [12]. I have no idea what you know regarding these lists, but there are well over 80 of this type. The consensus last time this was up for debate (about a week ago) was a speedy keep. I'm asking that this nomination be withdrawn, as there is already consensus among the Wikipedia community as well as consensus among WikiProject:U.S. Supreme Court cases that these lists remain the way they are. If you have any further comments, please list them here. --MZMcBride 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As I was the last one to nominate a pile of red links, and I withdrew (I knew it would come back to bite me!). SynergeticMaggot 09:43, 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 Speedy Delete by NawlinWiki. Srose (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harris Smith

No indication given of notability. "Underground" is a key word in the article. Google returns nothing relevant. Crystallina 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Underground and fringe artists are always tricky, but this one seems to be a pretty clear-cut case. BigHaz 03:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:17, 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 Keep. Molerat 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebrahim Hatamikia

This page has been listed on articles needing translation for seven days now, but it's still in Arabic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's in Persian, actually. See fa:ابراهیم حاتمی کیا. Apparently, someone has started to translate it into English, but most of it has not been translated yet. If the partially translated portion is correct, the subject is an Iranian filmmaker, but looking at his IMDb entry I'm not convinced he's notable. [13] This is the English Wikipedia, so delete. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In recommendation of the translator's efforts, change my recommendation to neutral as to the current English-language version. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if someone started to translate, why are we nominating. At the very least notify the person who is translating before you delete this. (will do this in a moment). Frankly we chould allow the Persion, Arabic, or whatever language encyclopedia deciede whether or not this is notable. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No. We should apply our notability criteria. They are independent of country. Uncle G 10:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:Um... how can we tell notibility if the thing is not translated? Frankly it is notable as it is the only aribic (persian) language article I have seen in a while. (meant as a joke). Let the translator translate the thing, then bring it back here. If a move is nessacary to get the title into english, do so and let the translator work. He/She is doing us all a service (one that the majority of us can't do). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you read the notice on the article and the PNT discussion. I also recommend that you look at the article's history. Uncle G 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, translate, and move to Ebrahim Hatamikia. Notable director. He won an award for best film at the 24th International Fajr Film Festival[14]. His movies have been covered by several newspapers; see [15] for example from the New York Times (full text restricted). I discovered the following links that can aid a translation effort: [16] [17]. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri| 16:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if translated, otherwise delete, as this is the English Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and translate otherwise delete per nom. R.E. Freak 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in four different languages. If the translator wants to try again later, have him/her use their sandbox. Tests go there first. SynergeticMaggot 09:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual grace period. Quoting from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: "If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD." --Lambiam^Talk 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• I see no reason why an English-language article about this fellow would be inappropriate for English Wikipedia. It seems very strange to me that someone could actually look at this IMDb profile and come up with "not notable enough". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename this to whatever it is in English, then userify it to whoever is doing the translation. Out and out deletion seems to waste the effort already undertaken to translate... but until it's in English, it doesn't belong in mainspace, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for one more week Process must be followed. Keep for another week and then resubmit for afd. Bwithh 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't use the phrase "process must be followed". It makes experienced Wikipedians' teeth itch. One of the things about process on Wikipedia is that, if there is a good reason to ignore process, then following process is actually the Wrong Thing. Let's not fetishise it, eh? Instead explain why the result you want should be the result attained. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll use it that phrase if I like, thanks very much. It's an entirely reasonable position. I'm a deletionist who tries to be fair, and upholding process is one of the things which keep the more strident aspects of my views and other different strident views of other people in check. I'm modestly experienced at Wikipedia, there's no need to condescend and dismiss me as a newbie either. My explanation of my reasons is good enough in this case, as the nomination clearly states that it is specifically about the grace period for translation. I don't know what you think the nomination is about. As for as I can tell, you're suggesting that for unexplained reasons, this untranslated page doesn't deserve the full amount of grace period suggested by guidelines, and so we should apply WP:IAR and WP:SNOW arbitrarily. Bwithh 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've not suggested anything of the sort. All I've said is that "process must be followed" is the Wrong Thing to say: it's anti-Wikipedia and anti-common sense and profoundly silly. That doesn't mean I disagree with your view, that the article should not have been nominated so early. It just means that I think a better argument than "Process says X, and I am a fan of process" should have been provided. Process is good only when there is a good reason to follow it; in such cases (and I don't make a claim either way as to whether or not this is such a case), it's better to state that reason rather than simply rely on the magic word "process", which, as I said, makes people's teeth itch. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and second what Mark said. Deleting untranslated articles is to stop people from dumping text only to never return; clearly someone has already started work, so the untranslated content hasn't been abandoned. If, in time, it becomes clear that the rest is not being translated, then trim away the untranslated part. --bainer (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care on the redirect; keep Ebrahim Hatamikia, moving all untranslated content to the talk page. Subject is clearly notable. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect and keep Ebrahim Hatamikia per Kelly Martin. Some process is more important than others, and the two week's grace for non-English material is a hard rule that ought to be reliable. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - He's notable; I've seen his films in the international film festivals; we should be so lucky as to be that notable. Cleaned the article up a bit. Added some additional material. And there are standard forms those of us who translate use; we commment out the material until we can get back so as not to set off this alarm; I applied that technique. Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable, article in its current form as of today doesnt contain the persian anymore. Shouldnt have been listed for another week after it was anyway, there is a process to follow that allows for people adequate time. Thank you to whoever was working or still is working on the translation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The nominator deleted it out of process before, I restored it so it could have a chance to be translated and become the useful stub it is now. I think he is notable enough. Grandmasterka 09:44, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetal rights

Article is original research. Factual content is skeletal and unsourced. The remainder is an unencyclopedic essay. Severa (!!!) 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP verfiable sources, vague interpretation of "original research". content is under-nourished, can be developed. Somerset219 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Sources are included, just need cleanup and development. -- Imoeng 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it just needs work. - Richardcavell 05:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable concept at the heart of the abortion debate and various legal cases. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs work but the concept seems useful. --MichaelMaggs 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As far as legal rights go, this would have to be country specific, and Wikipedia does not only serve the USA. As far as ethical rights go, I agree about it being an unencyclopaedic essay. Byrgenwulf 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move part, delete rest - first part of the article could be a stub for something along the lines of Laws asserting fetal rights in the US. Second part is POV. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fetal protection would be a better location, I think, being a pre-existing stub article. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• An article on this topic (with, of course, the spelling corrected) would undoubtedly be useful. However, it would need to be a) far, far less biased towards the USA; b) more general — discussing the concept and its remifications rather than the current, almost list-like format we see now. The article needs improvement — a lot of improvement (gosh, isn't it easy to say that sitting here with no intention of actually editing it yourself) — but not deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the spelling is American English, and now I have looked at the Fetus article is actually the spelling preferred by the English-speaking medical community regardless of dialect. Jll 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Most articles I've read preserve the Latinate spelling over the pseudo-Greek "foetus" for etymological reasons. Refer to Talk:American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Fetus.2FFoetus. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I agree that Wikipedia needs an article on Fetal Rights, but not this one. It is so POV in its perspective that a big "cleanup" tag is not enough - it would be easier start again. Jll 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while I agree that the article could and should be improved, the subject should be covered at Wikipedia. We need one or more experts in the subject (I am not one) to work on this. Tagging as needing expert input would be preferable to delete. Gwernol 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article is little more than a series of forks from various other controversies. WP needs a Rights of the fetus article, but this is not the kernel of it. It is missing the most fundamental piece: there is no coverage of how the laws of various countries treat whether a fetus is a person, just a few examples without discussion of whether these examples are the norm or the outliers. Best as I can discern from a quick snoop over the internet, which is always caveat lector: in some jurisdictions, a fetus is treated as a person for inheritance if its dad dies, it shares with the already born children; it's not a person for driving in a high-occupancy vehicle lane; it's a person if the mother is killed; it's not a person if the mother aborts it if abortion is legal; it's not counted in a census and is therefore not "represented" in the Anglo-American governmental sense; it is a person for tax purposes (so it pays the same death duties as the living siblings if dad dies leaving an estate); etc....This is the stuff we need in this sort of an article. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP The article is sourced, some of the article is underdeveloped and it would be good to add in sections concerning fetal rights in law in other countries besides the US, also Wikipedia doesn't have another page on fetal rights and the article on fetal protection only deals with one aspect of fetal rightsJfraatz 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Evidently, I did not give sufficient explanation in my original post. The fact of the matter is that there were no clear, accessible sources listed in the article before User:Goldom amended a formatting error. The numbered citations were deadlinks and the "External links" section was assumed to be just that — an external links section — not a "Reference" or "Source" list. Users above have expressed NPOV concerns despite Jfraatz's insistence that all such issues have been resolved. WP:NPOV is a founding tenant of Wikipedia, and an especially important rule among controversial, hot-button articles, so it is unacceptable to let non-neutral, emotively-charged terms like "unborn child" or "fetal person" slide "for the sake of the argument" as Jfraatz has suggested. It is my belief that the current version of Fetal rights is too brief to warrant a seperate article; it should be merged to fetal protection, abortion debate, or person. -Severa (!!!) 23:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've decided to help build this article, so, I'm changing my vote to merge to Fetal protection. -Severa (!!!) 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlossuarez46. *drew 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But keep it NPOV by avoiding reference to "fetal persons." Doesn't belong in the abortion article. Right wing politicians and some religious persons want to give fetuses increasing rights, so it is an important national issue.Edison 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Hyphen5 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, alas. Per all the above. Metamagician3000 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Rewrite This article is horribly POV, instead of exploring the topic and debate its instead making a point for fetal rights. It mentions one easily dismissable objection and then does away with that objection and continues to push for fetal rights. Even the listing of laws are all things that support fetal rights, and nothing opposing the notion. Either a big POV tag needs to be slapped on this article and it needs to be rewritten or its needs a fresh start. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:00, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. Although, strictly speaking, the article does not constitute solely an attack, I am exercising a little discretion in light of the unanimous delete opinions below. The article starts by grossly insulting several groups of people and then descends into an scatological essay written in the first-person about a "unique and somewhat unprecedented philosophy". The attacks combined with the explicit admisssion that what isn't an attack is original research make this something that simply isn't an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerbilism

Original research Fg2 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Has WP:BOLLOCKS been made official policy yet? This is a textbook case. --Joelmills 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV The most NPOV thing is the use of "I" word there. -- Imoeng 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G1 --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and stop abusing that criterion. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per criteria. Crystallina 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think this sort of thing is speediable under current policies (though I wish it were). - Richardcavell 05:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete bollocks. Sadly, it's not patent nonsense, but it's a thin line. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no-brainer.SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:15, 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 as basically OR and because it's impossible to pin down what is a comedy song. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of comedy songs

For one thing, this is a pretty subjective list and possibly OR. For another, there's not a page on comedy songs, and it's generally considered bad form to have a "list of..." page when there's no subject page to reference. Third, even if this isn't considered subjective or OR, a category would work just as well here, if not better. I'll admit this isn't one of my more certain nominations, but it really doesn't seem to fit WP. So consider this a weak delete vote. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, there are articles on parody (which most of these songs are) and on comedy. I wouldn't say it's subjective, I can look at songs here and find them unfunny, but they were meant to be funny and just sucked. I wouldn't be against replacing it with a category. --TheTruthiness 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How does one define a comedy song? Does it differ from a parody? How about a novelty song? Whereas those two terms are fairly well-defined, a "comedy song" is not really an established term. If it is a catch-all for anything that is supposed to be humourous, then the natural question is, how much of it is supposed to be humourous? What about normal songs that with obvious puns and jokes included? As there's no generally accepted definition for "comedy song," this list cannot be NPOV. GassyGuy 07:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I should've thought of novelty songs; that might be a good destination for merge and redirect? Or are some of these entries distinctly "comedy" but not novelty? -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Couldn't merge them all in, in my opinion. Some of them wouldn't be novelty songs as far as I can tell (I Wanna Talk About Me, the very presence of which shows the unclear criteria, isn't really a novelty song, and neither is "The Bad Touch," to name two. If somebody felt like sorting through them all there might be a few, but there're already a lot of examples at the article to which you linked. GassyGuy 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but expand. Major work needed. Avala 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subjective --Astrokey44 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The list would eventually be enormous and have to be split into chunks too small to be much use. Say 1% of all the songs performed by notable groups? How many is that - ten thousand, a hundred thousand? It's also a bit subjective - e.g. is a song with one funny line a comic song? Jll 15:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, I could add all hymns because I find a measure of humor of people singing the praises of a (probably) non-existent deity, then leaving church and acting entirely contrary to the words and spirit of what they just sang: just the picture of a bunch of hawk congressmen/generals/etc. choking on Xmas carols about "Peace on Earth" and such is a comedy, equal in my POV to Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though the article does have some obviousky structurial flaws it is a good start and maybe with a few introductory paragrapgs could greatly improve.Dhawk1964 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Next time, make it an article on "comedy songs" including a section on "song parodies" as well as "comedy dialect songs" such as "I Yust Go Nuts at Christmas." These date back to the very first records by Edison. As a raw list it is not compelling. It does not even give the year, and how many are from the 1950's or earlier? Most of the songs are unfamiliar and the titles themselves are not generally funny. Come up with the top selling comedy songs, what made them funny, changing standards on aceptable stereotyping ("The Preacher and the Bear" for instance).Edison 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GassyGuy. --Hyphen5 06:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is a Category:Comedy songs, and I've added a few of these to it. Categories are a much better structure for this sort of thing. This list seems very subjective. With categories the actual editors of articles get to decide and non-notable entries get weeded out in the normal way. -MrFizyx 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How do we determine if some thing is comedy or novelty? I just found Category:Novelty songs, which some seem to feel is a distinct genre. -MrFizyx 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetMalaysia

non-notable, spam, advertisement, vanity. Choose your favorite reason. __earth ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom __earth ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Since AfD is not a vote, I'm at a loss as to why you felt it necessary to add this. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote? __earth ^(Talk) 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete altho actually I was "prod'ing" it when you created the AfD--Diogenes00 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

beat ya to it =p __earth ^(Talk) 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --MichaelMaggs 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Blatant spam. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy it all the way to planet Malaysia. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:15, 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 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mmm boogrrs

Notability in question. ghits: [18]. Alexa rank 5,872,017 — NMChico24 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete appears to fail WP:WEB. Yanksox 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. BigHaz 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Eww, delete per nom. Non-notable webcomic. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, patently non-notable, fails WP:WEB, is in essence WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet our content policies (unverifiable through reliable sources). -- Dragonfiend 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Copied over to Comixpedia at MMM BooGrrs. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:21, 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 speedy close; inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion because it's been merged. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 12 2006 incident

POV fork which has already been merged Tewfik^Talk 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Incomplete nomination, I am completing nomination now. I will also remove the prod & prod2a tags from the page as an AFD nomination trumps a prod (per WP:PROD). Prod concern was "Article content is already in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict page". My prod 2a concern was "Title also represents a POV fork problem. This whole situation is too recent and should be confined to a minimal number of comprehensive articles until some persepctive is possible." The title issue has been fixed by moving, but if this page goes the redirect at Ayta al-Sha`b incident needs to be attended to and the half dozen pages that point at it (including a template) also need attending to. GRBerry 05:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per prod and my prod2a rationale provided above. GRBerry 05:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect since it was merged, it can't be deleted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural redirect. The final step of a merge is a redirect, not deletion. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:18, 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 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Access Information Technology

no other notability other than being recognised by Indian Govt. and Reserve Bank of India. Every It company in India has to be registered and approved. Also no notable products. Ageo020 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I blanked it and listed it on WP:CP since the article was almost a carbon copy of the only linked website. Besides that, there's no claim of notability and no references beyond their website (and the term "Access Information Technology" gets around 19000 hits for me on google, and only the wikipedia entry is about this company), so it should probably get deleted in any case. - Bobet 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Access Information Technology is too general of a term to apply a google test. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Soft Infosystems

Very small company.non notable really. Revenue is around $3.2 million. It does have 500 employees which is not verified. Article looks likeit has been copied from the company website. Ageo020 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to have done anything unique, or invented anything. Also weak search engine hits. (364 from google, 591 from Yahoo!, 642 from MSN, and 494 from Ask.com Note, all the searches were made in English only, and phase mode). Frankly important companies are capable of much higher hits and search engine gaming.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigel Entertainment

A little known production company which has very little history (founded in 2004). The article lists movies prior to that which are acually produced by Bigel/Mailer Films. Note that each of these almost unquestionnably falls in the B-movie class and none of them have any independent notability. Furthermore, the article was created by Jordanbigel (talk · contribs) which raises suspicion of vanity. As a company I think it's safe to say it fails WP:CORP and the google test returns 306 hits, although only 93 unique hits which is not a whole lot for a Hollywood based production company. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? The production company is new but in the film industry the banner you work under is less important then the credits you have to your name. In this case Daniel has produced 10 full length feature films and has just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (a fact which I do intend to add to the article). The fact that I am related to Daniel should in no way bear on the decision to remove the article.

If the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia rests on some evaluation of the quality of the films then I would refer to Daniel's most recent release, the Kevin Bacon film Loverboy which is also Mr. Bacon's directorial debut. This film as well as several other films produced by Daniel Bigel already have entries in Wikipedia. For example Harvard Man, Empire and Black and White (1999 film) are all included in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs)

Comment The requirements are not really on the quality of the films although that would not hurt. Of course a production company with a long history of films would be notable enough but in the case such as this one where the company is very young (even including the Bigel/Mailer era) then the quality, impact and success of the movies is important. Loverboy has gotten mostly bad reviews [19] and has been a commercial flop. The same can be said of Empire [20] and Harvard man [21] (which went essentially straight to DVD).

As for the fact that you are related to Daniel Bigel, it in fact does matter. Please refer to WP:VAIN for a detailed explanation. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. They only have four employees. Definitely not notable. If this can be verified with reliable sources, I'll change my mind. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you might as well change your vote right now. The company undeniably exists and even IMDb should have it somewhere (or maybe only Bigel/Mailer). The google search I posted in the nomination will give you decent sources. Pascal.Tesson 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Removed that part - I seem to be blind this evening. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Admitted WP:VAIN, and article therefore looks to be Original Research. Tychocat 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Daniel Bigel has not just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as stated above. He is not on the list of persons invited to membership in 2004 [22], 2005 [23], or 2006 [24]. --Metropolitan90 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The company is obviously notable as a merger of two other significant companies, their combined catalogue includes movies we have on Wikipedia. Its almost as if you disavow AOL/Time Warner after the merger, before their first earnings quarter, as a company that hasnt made anything. Or if George Lucas left his current company to make another and it was AfD'd for not having any movies made yet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A smattering of news items on variety.com which sound part crystal ball, part trade wire pickups. 3 films annually with budgets of $10-25m doesn't instill confidence either. Maybe once they get a big splash. I have no idea where zer0faults comes from, it seems like Bigel went off on his own with the company. As for the George Lucas comparison, T&E:FEQ. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of signature phrases

This article was deleted before as part of an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catch phrases. It was re-created, and I tagged it with {{db-repost}}, which was removed, so now it's here. This is a potentially limitless and unmaintainable list, with no criteria for inclusion (anything could be construed as a "signature" phrase). Some of these are obvious, yes, but the list is completely unsourced. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as recreation of previously-deleted material, new name or old. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above and my original nom. Yomangani 10:37, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Gunderson

non-notable conspiracy theorist, fails WP:V —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. NawlinWiki 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 09:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I found some of the WP:V sources. Just have a look through the 12,000 google hits on "Ted Gunderson" conspiracy theorist. If you would like me to pick out the individual sources for you, leave a message on my talk page.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:49, 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 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FPSBANANA

I can only see a lot of biased (POV) unencyclopedic blabla.--Jestix 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; also, it includes a list of members which is unencyclopedic. Kalani ^[talk] 07:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete complete nonsense Selmo 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Frag (delete), ad for non-notable web forum. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• taking shrapnel upon Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Headshot (delete) this article as soon as possible. Dark Shikari 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed there are several "aliases" as simple redirects for this page also ... I will just add them to this afd discussion if thats okay. --Jestix 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • FPSB
  • Bananite
  • CSBANANA
  • CSCENTRAL
  • Counter-Strike Banana
• Delete, with redirects, as per nom. SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and kind of like an advertisement. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the largest customization resources for FPS; Half-life based games especially.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Transit Commission subway map

I don't think a ASCII of the TTC Subway map is really needed Selmo 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't an article. It is different representation (textual) of another site's info. And how could this article be more current than going to that site to get the PDF? If there is a need for this representation, perhaps the TTC people ought to be notified? Shenme 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want a map, make a real one and upload it as an image that can be used as part of articles. This isn't the way to do this. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an article in its own right --MichaelMaggs 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially no content. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While the map itself it very well done, there is no need for it to be on Wikipedia. The main TTC articles already include many coloured maps of the subway network and its future expansion. Snickerdo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it is demonstrated that there is something encyclopedic about this particular subway map. Jkelly 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• If there's some pressing need to have a TTC subway map on Wikipedia, do up a real one and upload it as an image that can be put into the TTC's article. I can't believe somebody actually thought this would be useful enough to warrant putting work into it. Delete. Bearcat 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless Wiki starts to embed character-made maps. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it! The ASCII version was a help to me. If you want to get rid of it, post an image of it. Until then, leave a version on this website. I don't have PDF viewer either, so it really came in handy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetBoredom (talk • contribs) July 31.

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

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

The result was merge to Meg Cabot. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meg Cabot Book Club

Alexa rank of 826,000. It does not appear to meet the criteria set in WP:WEB. Hbdragon88 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the intro and "Features" sections into Meg Cabot, Delete the rest per nom. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Meg Cabot per above. Pages that are merged can't be deleted (in order to remain GFDL compliant). - Bobet 15:25, 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 speedy A1. Roy A.A. 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar the Last Airbender:Conqueror from the other world

Patent unverified nonsense Mystyc1 07:47, 29 July 2006
AFD nomination was not complete; fixed afd2 segment. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Makes no sense whatsoever.--MichaelMaggs 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is this a movie or a cartoon. certainly i;s not there in the cartoon series. can't find an article for this imdb --Ageo020 09:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable original research and possible hoax. I will also note that the original author of this aritlce does not have any other edits outside of this article. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1. Yeah, it's probably about a movie, but it doesn't explicitly say what it is... hence, no context for expansion. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walden West

There has been a notability warning on this page for some time now, but in spite of that no-one has managed to find a single independent source, nor even simply to allege notability. Plenty of time has elapsed for the page to be fixed up, and it should now go. MichaelMaggs 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• KeepI found some links on google: [25] [26] [27] [28] 400,000 students in over 50 years is a lot. If we're going to keep high schools, I think this is probably worthy, too.--Chaser T 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I agree with User:Chaser, I think this may be notable enough —Mets501 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability verified. --Royalbroil 04:02, 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 keep. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan Loy

Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• Weak Keep The page does read like blog-promotion. But the fact that major old-media outlets (NYT etc) turned to a personal blog as a source in a time of major national crisis is kind of significant to the history of media -- just because it was probably one of the first times that had happened. However, merging the info into a section on "Media coverage" (which I'm surprised to see doesn't exist yet) on the Hurricane Katrina page would be fine--or maybe put it in the blog article. Minus the puff-quotes of course. Dybryd 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems Mr. Loy is also featured in Spike Lee's new movie about Hurricane Katrina.[29] -- 137.53.94.17 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• No opinion As the subject of the article, I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, I just want to say that it is NOT a "vanity page," if I understand the definition of that term correctly. I did not create the article, and I have no idea who did. Nor have I participated in the revert wars that have happened in recent months; I've watched them with some amusement, but have remained on the sidelines. Anyway, if the Wikipedia community thinks it's not sufficiently notable to be included, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if people wouldn't imply that I created an article about myself when in fact I did nothing of the sort. -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:14 PM EDT
• Keep Seems newsworthy to me. -- Anon, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:57 PM EDT
  • IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems from the coverage that this blog was never used as a source for any news; just in the scores of articles about Katrina a couple noted his coverage of it. And nothing of any note has happened since then, nor does his blog have enough readers to meet the standards of notability. Not to mention that he has now made an entry on his blog about how his entry is up for deletion--insisting that it is not "meatpuppetry," naturally, but simply informing his readers (who are, as far as I can tell, his parents and a few college friends) of the "interesting" fact that it's up for a vote. Nautikale 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only contribution have been to this AfD -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Solid case for notability provided with verifiable & reliable sources. Alexa gives a current rank of 227,116 (3 mo. average), but also shows a recent spike (last week) to ~51,000 and a peak of ~25,000 during the Katrina days. -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I am also surprised a "Media Coverage" section on Hurricane Katrina does not exist yet. While I do not find this article to be a vanity post, the information contained in this article would be much more relevant as part of the Hurricane Katrina page. Ravenkatie 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only contribution has been this AfD -- Scientizzle 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This would be the most I would agree with. The only arguable notability of the blog was a few puff pieces related to Katrina a year ago. The only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage, and it was not enough attention that an account of Katrina would mention Brendan Loy other than perhaps as a minor footnote. Wikipedia should reflect that. I still think he's not worth a mention at all, but if he merits any Wikipedia mention it should be as a minor footnote to Hurricane Katrina, not an entry of his own. Nautikale 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, look. I again reiterate that I am expressing no opinion about whether the article is notable. That's a decision for y'all, not me, to make. But I'm not going to let blatant untruths and character assassination go unchallenged. First of all, the implication that I'm engaging in meatpuppetry, despite my repeated, straightforward, honest statements to the contrary, is a flagrant violation of "assume good faith." Secondly, the assertion that my readers are my "parents and a few college friends" is laughably false. Really, I'm flattered by the assertion that I have thousands of "college friends," but it's just not true; I wasn't that popular in college! :) Before Katrina, my blog averaged around 1,250 unique hits per day; during and in the immedate aftermath of Katrina, that shot up to 7,500+ per day, and as many as 20,000-33,000 on some days; and since November of last year, after Katrina, it's hovered around 2,000 per day (see for yourself here), with occasional higher bursts (last week, for example, I received a ton of traffic because of widespread blogospheric discusison of my commentary on the Lieberman-Lamont election (and, to a lesser extent, the London terror plot). That leads to my final point: "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage" is simply, flatly, verifiably untrue. See, for example, this list of 69 links from InstaPundit since February 2003 -- only about 20 of them related to Katrina. Other topics covered on my blog that have received significant attention from multiple prominent bloggers: my coverage of the Bush-Lieberman "kiss" (try googling "bush lieberman kiss," without quotes, and see what comes up); my commentary on John Kerry's deficiencies during the 2004 election; my coverage of the South Park controversy back in March (check the Wikipedia entry and the link to "Internet clip" in paragraph 4 of "Real-life censorship controversy"); the Lieberman-Lamont election and the London plot, as I mentioned (see for example Technorati); and there's plenty more. Technorati notes I have recevied 737 links from 310 blogs, by the way. Also getting plenty of attention: my coverage of USC and Notre Dame football generally, and specifically my videos of the USC-Notre Dame game last fall, taken from the ND student section, which have gotten repeatedly linked by fan sites for both teams. Oh, and if you want non-blogospheric sources of "attention" ... I was on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal and mentioned on Fox News nearly two years before Katrina because of a Lord of the Rings-related story. And, two months before Katrina, I was in the South Bend Tribune just for my blog generally, not for any specific topic. Now, AGAIN: I am not asserting that this level of "attention" makes me "notable" -- that's for you all to decide, not me. I'm simply refuting the false statement that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." My intention here is to correct the factual record, and nothing more. Whatever you decide, I simply hope you'll base your decision on verifiable facts, not unverified and untrue assertions. I also hope you'll assume good faith and not attack me for leaving this comment here. The mere fact that I don't appreciate being the subject of factual untruths and character assassination doesn't make the article a "vanity entry." (And, if I were into sockpuppetry, wouldn't I leave this comment under someone else's name?) -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 3:48 PM EDT
      • Ok, wow. Please make sure you understand the terms you are using before reacting so vehemently to a discussion. I reiterate that I just don't think this person or blog meets any of the guidelines of notability, either people or websites. Instapundit is a good comparison: that's a website that has attained enough of a readership and notoriety on its own to merit an entry. Having been linked from it does not make a blog of the same stature. Nautikale 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • My "character assassination" reference was to your unsupported, false, assuming-bad-faith allegation (at 05:17 today) that I was engaging in meatpuppetry. If you'll withdraw the allegation, I'll withdraw my use of the term "character assassination." As for your reiterating that you "just don't think" the subject of the article is notable, that's fine, and for the umpteenth time I am not expressing an opinion about that conclusion -- I'm just saying that you need to stick to facts and not state things which are blatantly and demonstrably false, like that my blog's readership is limited to friends and family, or that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." Those are both factually incorrect assertions, as I've demonstrated above, and if you're not going to either acknowledge their falsity and retract them, or else attempt to refute or somehow explain away the factual citations above which discredit your unsupported statements to the contrary, I don't see why anyone should take your contribution to this discussion seriously. My response is "vehement" only because you are assuming bad faith and making false assertions of fact about me, neither of which have any place in Wikipedia. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:00 PM EDT
        • P.S. For informational purposes only: you may find this page helpful in assessing the extent of the Katrina-related media coverage about my site. Please note, the page does not include non-Katrina-related articles. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:07 PM
• Comment I have expanded and cleanly referenced the article. I think it stands up to WP:BIO & WP:WEB pretty well.
  • WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Check.
  • WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Check.
  • WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is a pure vanity page as evidenced by the fact that the subject has updated it himself and constantly posts here vigorously defending his honor against 'character assassination'. Writing a blog is decidedly unnoteworthy no matter how much it is temporarily popular. 24.63.250.152 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • IP's only contributions are to this AfD and a personal attack on Talk:Brendan Loy -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Loy's constant presence in this discussion is rather indicative of his personal investment in this vanity page staying up. Regardless of whether the subject wrote the entry himself or not, whoever the author is has an obvious non-journalistic interest in Loy. 82.69.72.36 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jaffa
  • IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My presence in this discussion is indicative of no such thing, as I've repeatedly made explicitly clear. My only "investment" is in correcting the factual record and preventing untruths from being passed off as truths. Do what you want with the damn article, but if you say things that are demonstrably false, I am going to correct them. If that's wrong, then I don't want to be right. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is indicative that you don't seem to have any respect for Wikipedia's most basic principles. The same goes for everyone who insists on ignoring the verifiable facts I've presented and focusing only on the ulterior motives that you ascribe to me, notwithstanding that my actions are perfectly reasonable and justifiable without any ulterior motive (and thus assuming good faith is dictated). (Brendan Loy) 67.133.222.170 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge While Loy may deny his personal investment in keeping this page up through words, his incessant replies to almost every entry seem to indicate otherwise. His rebuttal to "blatant untruths and character assassination" reads as a veiled attempt at advertising and making the case to keep. This page has been nothing but a pissing match between Loy's supporters and his detractors. To merge as part of a wider look at blogs or Hurricane Katrina would be acceptable. It is not worthy on its own.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.65.55 (talk • contribs) .
  • IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per Scientizzle. Dionyseus 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: A review of the subject page, coupled with comments by both Loy and his college friends ( I believe user Scientizzle is a close personal friend) reveals that the blog is, in fact not designed to inform per Wikipedia's standards, and, in fact, is being used by Loy and his friends to publicize his blog. In addition, it is worth noting that the entry has been subject to frequent edit wars, which indicate that it is being used as a forum for his friends and detractors to air personal grievances. The entry provides little to no value as a scholarly enterprise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.117.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • The article being subject to frequent edit wars is not a valid argument for deletion, otherwise George W. Bush or anything else here should be deleted... -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am friends with Brendan. That does not change the fact that almost none of the anonymous IPs (and new accounts) that have commented here have presented a valid, detailed argument against keeping (by addressing the relevant policies and guidelines). You may not think the subject is notable, but Wikipedia has two established notability guidelines (WP:BIO & WP:WEB); I have detailed above 4 criteria from these two guidelines that the article appears to meet. I believe I've objectively come to my "keep" vote and properly supported my conclusion. Additionally, while Brendan Loy has been (in my opinion) overly zealous in defending his honor here, there have been several specious and demonstrably false claims made in support of deletion. I honestly wonder where all these anon IPs and new accounts with no Wikipedia edit history are coming from. Please stick to the facts, make sounds arguments, and avoid personal attacks. -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I appreciate your contributions to the discussion and your evident hard work on the entry, although I still disagree with your conclusions. But I disagree with any characterization of the previous discussions, including my own, as "demonstrably false claims" or personal attacks. You will notice that I qualified the statements I made with things like "as far as I can tell" and "seems like." This is because I am not friends with Brendan Loy and know only what I read online. For example, I said it seems like the only attention his blog got from outside sources was connected to Katrina--and I stand by that, qualified by the "seems." It's great that Mr. Loy can give an exhaustive account of every time his blog has been linked by another blog, and I wish him the best in expanding his readership, but the average user on Wikipedia who does not read his blog regularly would not know or care about a two-day spike in traffic to his website last month. Nor would they particularly care that a fake South Park video clip linked to by another Wikipedia entry happens to be hosted on his blog in one of the two places it is linked to on the page. The only larger significance that the blog seems to have achieved was in relation to Katrina. This is not a claim that nobody has ever linked to the blog in relation to another topic, or that I'm committing character assassination on Mr. Loy by failing to recognize his achievements in other areas. I just don't think, as a casual reader and relatively new acquaintance of the blog, that it has significance of the type generally required by Wikipedia. I have referred to Wikipedia's guidelines previously, but to repeat: Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (people)(WP:BIO). He has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. He is not a published author with multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work. He has not achieved renown or notoriety for his involvement in in newsworthy events. At best, he has achieved minor note for assembling information on Hurricane Katrina, so at most I think it it would be accurate, if generous, to mention his blog as related to media coverage of the hurricane. He has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (web)(WP:WEB). I do not consider the handful of what I would call puff pieces on Brendan Loy multiple non-trivial published works. No disrespect meant, but I do not believe articles headlined "Weather nerd" are non-trivial pieces. His website has not won a well-known and independent award, nor is it published by any site independent of Mr. Loy himself. Nautikale 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see anything here that's worthy of an ecyclopedia article. Sounds more like some guy with a blog looking to do some self-advertising.-66.254.235.231 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. Self-stroking glamour post, just like his blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.208 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reflexive user interface

A Google test reveals that the term "Reflexive user interface" is almost universally used to refer to IBM Reflexive User Interface Builder (which generates the majority of the 805 Google hits). Overall, the article lacks clarity and context, does not cite sources (with the exception of a link to the aforementioned builder, which does not use the term itself), and resembles original research. - Sikon 09:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete does admit to the use of IBM Reflexive User Interface Builder, and has one other source, but it looks to me like it is re-covering material from other articles rather than referring to its topic. It obviously needs some work, but hasn't been touched since 2005. I could be persuaded to a Keep if anybody rallies to its cause. Yomangani 14:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• A Strong Keep, in which I rally to the cause. This is a very common term in IT circles (and edu circles, to a lesser extent). By the way, would anybody like to guess what I stuck up my butt today? 71.101.225.225 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The description doesn't make sense. It's possible that there's an article there, but this isn't it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateway Technolabs

Advertisment for non-notable company. Created by editor with the same username as the company name. Lurker ^{your words}/_{my deeds} 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an advertisement purpose. I am a customer of it. And i feel that it is worth notable & emerging company in india. So, i have started this article.

Don't delete -It should not be that creating article has anything related to name. It is good to notify about such company with user name like it. So it is not a promotion. Not any advertisement. It is injustice that anybody won't able to post article about site which one author doesn't know about.

• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. And per the pleas of the advertiser to leave his ad up on Wikipedia ;) Dark Shikari 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; does not assert notability —Mets501 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like an opinion piece which is not encylopedic. Nothing in the article asserts to meeting any of the guidelines listed above. Vegaswikian 22:34, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Stollar

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 10:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, reads like vanity. Martín (saying/doing) 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jll 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self publicist. Linesman 16:27, 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 11:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Strike 1.6 Guide

Delete per guidelines: Wikipedia is not the place for tutorials, manuals and how-tos Lurker ^talk 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jll 11:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator Park3r 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I wish the contributing editors nothing but the best, and thank them for their efforts, but that's not the sort of content we're looking for. Luna Santin 13:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per clause 8 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The clearest case of game guide I've ever seen. Ace of Sevens 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ace of Sevens. It even has the word "guide" in its title. ;) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think that covers it. Tell the guy to move it to Wikibooks or something if he gets angry.--Planetary 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Woah, a game guide AFD for an article that's actually a game guide! -- gakon5 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Stellmach 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. Universal deletion! If only things were that simple elswhere.--Planetary 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't even pretend to be an encyclopedia article. AMHR285 ^(talk) 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Bennett

Non notable person. Lots of people are in talent shows Pally01 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The most relevant thing I could find (and it's Google's first hit, too). I think that page makes a clear case for Ms Bennett being insufficiently notable at this stage (see also WP:MUSIC). However, I wish her luck in her career; perhaps one day she will prove to be the Britney Spears of the West Midlands area. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and wish her the best of luck for the future per nom fuddlemark. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can be recreated if she is notable in the future. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:31, 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 speedy close. I wish all who want to argue about the matter good luck in their proposed merge; but that's not what AfD is for. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dormston Centre

This is already dealt with at Dormston School. Maybe merge? Pally01 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• merge Jll 10:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, small mention which is already at Dormston School is plenty —Mets501 (talk) 11:41, 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 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tekken 7

Was prodded as crystal balling (since nothing has been officially announced, and even Tekken 6 isn't completed yet), was deprodded without addressing the issues raised in the prod, and has since only had the assertion that "a friend of a friend of a friend knows this is going to be made" added since. While I'm sure there will eventually be a Tekken 7, this article does not belong on Wikipedia just yet, especially in its current form which reads entirely as a hoax (claiming it to be a dancing game in development by Nintendo for the Atari 2900, due out "tomorrow"). Even if made into a serious article there is nothing at all that can be verified about the game yet. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. That article treads on the boundary of "nonsense" with its "friend of a friend" statement and the like. Dark Shikari 11:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The 'friend of a friend...' statement about sources says it all, really. The article can be recreated when there is an official announcement or press release.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. It's worth noting the presence of an image. It's also worth noting that the image in question is Tekken6.jpg. Luna Santin 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. Re create when there's actual info. Ace of Sevens 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal balling and unverifiable. A Google of "Tekken 7" only turns up comments from webforums. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per (aeropagitica), because a friend of a friend of mine told me so. :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Assuming there will eventually be a Tekken 7, the page can be recreated when it's officially announced. --SevereTireDamage 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete LOL "A friend of a friend told me..." -- gakon5 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is this clairvoyant scrying into a crystal ball? Or (as the phrase "friend of a friend of a friend told me" leads me to wonder) humorous jocular irony? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical crystal-balling. Unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Stellmach 18:32, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia haruyama

Vanity article on non-notable person by booster of organization she heads. Katr67 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Verging on speedyable non-notability, unless the author would care to explain what's notable about the friends group at Hoyt Aroretum. Very weak merge to Hoyt Arboretum Tonywalton  | Talk 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

She's already on there. Delete and delink the entry on the arboretum article. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely certain why this couldn't be redirected. If anyone's interested in this person, whose only notability (it seems) stems from the Hoyt Arboretum, then a redirect to the Arboretum article would be more useful than a redlink. I've taken the liberty of setting up the redirects now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:56, 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. No Guru 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DatingHall

• keep I liked it.S4u
• Keep The only one 100% free service online. bakss

Advertisement. Fails WP:WEB Alexa rank 400,000+. All google hits self published promos. BigE1977 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Same articles were kept here. bakss

The above comment was left by the article's creator. Srose (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Free internet dating service was created by the same author and thus also is included here for debate. BigE1977 11:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged that with {{db-copyvio}} (see article for URL). Luna Santin 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, article is also a mess —Mets501 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, also delete the jpg file (screenshot of the website). SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Avala 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Luna Santin 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamvert for a non-notable website. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:31, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Jones

The most notable thing in this person's career appears to be that he has testified before a commission and a committee. Is that enough to satisfy notability? Weregerbil 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Jones is already mentioned on at least one other Wikipedia page, and the fact that he has testified before Congress on several occasions makes him a notable public figure. If the article needs to be rewritten in order to emphasize this significance, I'll be happy to do so; suggestions would be appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn (talk • contribs)

• A major figure in the world of electronic voting with dozens of journal and conference papers to his name, who has influenced the election policies of multiple countries, been quoted in the New York Times and Scientific American, and appeared on NPR, certainly sounds like a notable individual to me. NoDepositNoReturn

• Comment Weregerbil, would you like to correct this page so we know why you are nominating the article for deletion? I guess it is for lack of notability but it's a bit strange to have the argument started with no nomination. Yomangani 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:NoDepositNoReturn added his comment at the top; now moved down. Weregerbil 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Jones is well-known within the field of electronic voting. He certainly appears to rise to the level of notability, especially given this subject's importance to the world nowadays. (ObDisclosure: I work with Jones. However, you can certainly verify what I'm saying just by Googling for "Doug Jones" and "electronic voting". Please note that one of the hits comes from Professor Ron Rivest's homepage, which links to Jones and describes him as an expert on electronic voting.) Rob 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Non-notable per WP:BIO. The only test he gets close to in the guideline is: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field, but I doubt the article qualifies under that as it stands. I suggest adding the references from the NY Times and Scientific American to try and establish notability. Yomangani 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You refer to the "guideline" like it is a prescriptive policy. If something doesn't fit under it then you should not even refer to it. Make your own judgement based on the actual 5-6 real Wikipedia policies, like verifiability and neutrality. You did not refer to them at all, as if this is just a notability exercise. Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - since non-notability was the reason for the nomination, I think it is reasonable to refer to the guidelines when suggesting improvements to get the article to a 'Keep' status. If you notice, I added 3 references before giving my opinion but, since these were essentially sources from the subject's website, I suggested adding the other references. I could have just as well referred to WP:OR and WP:V but felt this was redundant. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion to keep if the policies are met, but don't want to see this get another AFD in a couple of months for the same reason. Yomangani 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The NYT articles were on 28 July 2004, 2 March 2004, 9 November 2003 and 26 September 2003, and are thus only available for purchase now. Same thing for the SciAm article. Should links to purchase them be provided? I'll add a link to the NPR interviews, as they are freely available.
• Keep The person is sufficiently well known to have verifiable material written on them. Why go any further with establishing "extra notability" Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. If testifying before congress makes someone notable we are gonig to end up with thousands of articles of people who just testified in front of congress. Being cited or asked a question in a newspaper does not make the person notable, the articles arent written about them, but about voting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This person is well known within the field of computer science, and regarded as one of the leading experts in the field of electronic voting. He also has an extensive peer-reviewed publication record. --Rabbi 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability has been verified. --Royalbroil 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tepa x3

Does this famous notable gang exist? The article claims a 50-year history, hundreds of members in prison — but apart from a MySpace page[30] and a few incoherent chat posts[31] google doesn't seem to know them. The two books cited as sources aren't on google either. Weregerbil 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's a gang, it may be hard to establish notability, but given the research of the nom I smell something hoaxy. Delete. BigHaz 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 502 ghits [32] (starting with such noteworthy sites as Youtube and Myspace!), 0 gnews hits [33]. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Luna Santin 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:BIO apply to groups or purported groups? Just curious, more than anything else. BigHaz 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a perfect fit, but in this case I'd say it gets the same points across. For some discussions, WP:ORG would be more appropriate. That's my opinion, anyway. Good question. :) Luna Santin 13:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete IMO a gang would have to generate at least a few news articles to be worthy of an article. Has to be something that's known not just in one city of area. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's nonsense. --Bigtop 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable street gang. Do we have wikipedia guidelines on notability for street gangs? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Smallman

Yet another election candidation/local councillor. Timrollpickering 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Cleverly

Yet another election candidation/blogger Timrollpickering 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete has plenty of hits, but they are of him talking. Not of others talking about him. 38,700 google hits.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Am not sure how this works. Mr Cleverly is now running to become the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London - http://www.jamescleverly4london.com/

• Strong Keep:

1. As a candidate for Mayor of London, Cleverly is in the public eye and as such, an article on him will be of interest to a relatively large number of people. If anything, we should be expanding this article, not deleting it.
2. Cleverly is one of the very few non-white Tory politicians, surely adding to his notability.
3. Wiki is not paper

Soobrickay 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of anything notable /achieved/. This is one of those cases where the article for the race should be created first. BlueValour 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Whitbread

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable candidate. Gogo Dodo 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Candadate=non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local councillors are not notable. BlueValour 04:17, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margot James

Yet another election candidation/local councillor/internal party office holder. Timrollpickering 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - I am normally inclined to delete these, but James has a relatively high profile as a vice-chairman of the party and symbol of the new breed of A-lister Tory the leader is hoping for. Martín (saying/doing) 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High profile candidate, and likely to get a shot at a safe seat next time round. Catchpole 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Local councillors are notable. With the recent "A-list" discussion we will have to reinstate the page soon enough if we delete it now. – Kaihsu 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - local councillors are most definitely not notable. The guidelines are, national, state, provincial etc but not municipal. BlueValour 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father Physics

Uncommon neologism [34]. See talk page for rationale given for removing prod. Note that many of the Google hits do not refer to this concept (Liberatore, 2006). 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:OR, cites the same source from a forum on both the article and the talk page (see WP:RS) and the rest is the editor's opinion. Yomangani 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reason above. --Cassavau 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I'm a little ambivalent. This is a weird usage. Didn't expect to find much on Goggle, and didn't find a lot; but when you google "father physics" you find there is indeed some usage (note the quotation marks). So on the WP:OR test. It does not introduces a theory or method of solution; It does not introduce original ideas (they can be found elsewhere); It does not define new terms (although it does define one I'd never heard before); It is not a new definition of pre-existing terms; It does not introduce an argument that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It does not introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It attributes the neologism to a "reputable" source. Granted it is front end material; there is always danger that putting front end material into WIkipedia will give it momentum; but if we worry too much about that we'll put nothing in Wikipedia at all. I judge it passes WP:OR; and since I frequently come to Wikipedia to understand emerging pop culture, there is value to it. Williamborg (Bill) 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment In this case the article is introducing a new idea (clearly covered by WP:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms) so must be supported by reputable primary or secondary sources. The source is not reputable under WP:RS since it is a web forum, and even if it was, it is a source for the usage of the term, not the accompanying opinion. Yomangani 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or... Merge. There are other Google hits for "Father Physics", even once you eliminate "father's physics lab/class/student/text/book", etc. And certainly more hits than for "Father Science" (though there was a "Father Science and Mother Art" :). There's even a soliloquy addressing the figure of Father Physics. But ... I just don't think it has near enough currency to have its own article. Moreover, nearly all the usages I found explicitly or implicitly link "Father Physics" with its mirror, "Mother Nature". I have to think that until there are enough usage/example references, apart from mere dicdef's, that this can be nothing more than a footnote to the Mother Nature article. I'd say add a mention there and redirect. Shenme 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being on a fourm doesn't make it notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravityball

This article appears to be a vanity page created by Max Magoonian or by someone on his behalf.

The only such person I could find in Google is a fraternity member at Michigan State University. There is precious little about any pitch called a Gravityball on Google, and what there is is recent and links to this article.

--Cassavau 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with a big thud. NawlinWiki 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Magoonian gets only 4 Google hits and the pitch is likely a slang term. I searched the SABR archives (I am a member) to make sure I wasn't missing something, and no results turned up there either. SliceNYC 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteball. Unverifiable vanity. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per likely WP:HOAX. - RPIRED 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hmm, I don't know which to pick; WP:HOAX, WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yeah, probably in that order. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but tag for cleanup. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Tech (philosophy)

neo tech is a scam sent through the mail and this article promotes it this article should be deleted fully and forever never to plauge wikipedia again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 July 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: There was a previous AfD of this article, under a previous title, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clean up and Keep Neo tech is certainly acceptable as a notable internet meme, there are quite a few adherents, websites, etc etc, which mention Neo-tech. It is appropiate for this reason, however, to keep a third party point of view regarding Neo-Tech and I suggest a strong clean-up. I can't vouch for Neo Tech being a mail order scam or not, but it is a succesful mail order scam if so, and historically relevant in that case, i.e. one of the first 'internet' marketed ideologies. Sometimes I can't tell if it's tongue in cheek or not, as some of their arguments lead to the quite rational and reasonable to the quite bizarre, but this is a personal assesment and my vote is not dependent upon mine or any personal view of what Neo Tech is.User:Tumbleman
• Keep and Cleanup per above. Also here are the search engine hits that show that this is used. (search terms were, "Neo-Tech" philosophy) google = 15,500, yahoo = 4,500, MSN = 4,702 and ask.com = 2,900.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Zap if no one cleans up. In case that's not allowed, just zap. I agree the best thing to do is to have a major clean-up of the article, however I'm worried that there may be no one who's up for the task -- seems what's needed is someone who knows Neo-Tech inside out and isn't predisposed to or against Neo-Tech. In case such a clean-up isn't feasible, I propose to move it somewhere under Neo-Objectivism. Bi 11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately. Being impossible to clean up is not grounds for deletion, and it's a WP:Notable, WP:Verifiable scam. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Neotech is notable. By the way, it's not a scam. It's a philosophy. Some of the stuff may sound far out and the marketing techniques from the publisher sound scamish but that's intentional. They try to make the philosophy sound magical and mystical in order to lure in mystics looking for an authority to tell them how to have easy wealth and happiness. But what they are actually trying to do is transform them into non-mystics. They teach that the individual has to be his own authority and there is nothing that can get them wealth and happiness but hard work and making your own decisions instead of waiting for someone to show you the way. Or worse yet, waiting for death in order to have immortal life and bliss. That is the whole point of the philosophy, to eliminate mystics. From reading around on the net it looks like the publisher even buys mailing lists for subscribers to Christian magazines in order to turn them off to mysticism because they know they are an easy target as people looking for external guidance over their lives. JoeMystical 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I've tagged the article for wikification because of the absence of links. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British winter of 1946-1947

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article adds nothing to its primary external source, which was easily substituted for it where appropriate in articles that link there. I don't think we want articles on every "notable" meteorological season in history. Tcatts 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we do - if appropriately referenced and construed encyclopedically. In any case, inline linking in this manner is not the preferred style. — Zanaq (?) 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. More notability needs to be established rather than various records being broken. At the beginning it is mentioned in a post-World War 2 context. If that was expanded on and the authors proved why such a harsh winter affected England any more at that time than normal, I might change to keep. SliceNYC 16:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found some references here that could be used in this article. The subject is interesting, and this enclyclopedia has plenty of space for it (unlimited actually). Here is a link to the 14 MSN hits. In them you should find several non-wikipedia clone articles about this. Also note, as this is older than the web, a better place to look would be in the public library. I am sure that sources exist, and this looks important to me. Remember that just becuase an article needs improved does not mean that it needs to be deleted, that is why we have {{cleanup}} tags and the like.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As google is not the repository of all knowledge. Lots of records were broken and the post-WWII angle is an interesting one. Vickser 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was an exceptionally severe winter in UK and therefore notable. However this should not become an excuse for an article on every winter. Peterkingiron 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the top handful of most famous events in British climate history. Piccadilly 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Keep arguments are in the main from unregistered users, users with very few edits and unregistered users masquerading as accounts via fake signatures, while the arguments for deletion are very well grounded in Wikipedia:No original research. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding

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}}

wow this is bullshit. People like you are eventually going to run down wikipedia's ubiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.64.90 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole modus operandi of the page seems to be for the editors to check these games in their Xboxen, then update the chart accordingly. That's clearly orginal research. Ace of Sevens 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an extremely important catalog of information regarding Xbox 360 games. I see no reason for it to be deleted. 72.177.178.193 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Ericco
• Keep. Of course keep the page. What´s going on with wikipedia - on a deletion rush??? I need this page permanently ... Joblack 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a person, who owns a Xbox 360 NTSC/U console on a PAL region (Finland) I really have use for this page, as the page helps me to make purchaces, and be confident, that the games I buy (while working for minimum wage) do NOT go to waste. Guest 12:15 31 July (GMT +2:00)
• Keep. WHat are you guys saying? why would you want to delete this? I access this page almost everyday! KEEP! If you dont have a use for it randy wang, maybe it's time you thought about the other people that HAVE a use for it! GUest 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not at all encyclopedic (do we really need this article?), in addition to concerns regarding original research. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure this is really a necessary article either, but I wanted to mention that the primary external sources are 2 links to a forum (very bad) and one link to an online retailer (semi-legit). This is probably more appropriate on a gaming wiki such as egamia. --SevereTireDamage 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR. Combination 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Skinmeister 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote. You have to explain why to have any influence. Ace of Sevens 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, goto another personal site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.21.170 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. If they are testing the games and seeing if they work on different machines, they are compiling information into a useful format from primary sources. This is not original research within the meaning of the policy. (. . . (R)esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.) The article could use more context and background, but I'm not convinced that the information is useless, or that it is original research. Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's also the issue of it being useless. I've watched this for a few weeks and there are frequently nos changed to yeses and vice versa. Due to the lack of easy availabilty of the primary sources, this isn't easily verifiable and there's no way to ensure accuracy. Ace of Sevens 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. By Smerdis of Tlön's reasoning, nothing would count as original research. --Geoffrey Spear 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He's saying that OR only applies to opinions and conclusions, not raw data. Reading the policy, that appears to be correct. However, I thinkt ehre are plenty of other reason for deletion. Ace of Sevens 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that editors trying different games in different machines is qualitatively different than collecting information from existing primary sources. If the games themselves were labeled by their manufacturers as having no region encoding, I'd agree that this falls under the above-quoted part of the policy. --Geoffrey Spear 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Nova Prime 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I use this list all the time, it really is usfull information for 360 owners.--DELTAsnake 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the above is the only edit by this user.--Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very comprehensive listing here that is constantly being updated. I refer to this list as the authority on cross region operability. --MortimerSmythe 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia shouldn't be the authority on anything. That's pretty much the opposite of references. Ace of Sevens 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- The above "vote" was made by User:83.146.13.253. There is no user named "MortimerSmythe". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this list is quite usefull. You should keep it definitely. --bigdrbrain 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above "vote" was made by User:84.173.249.171, and is the only edit made by that IP address. There is no user named "bigdrbrain". --Geoffrey Spear 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep i like to check this list every other day or so!!!! KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.234.228 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete One of the sources appears to be a fourm, which would constitute WP:OR. Otherwise, WP:NOT a collection of indistriminate info. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The information may be useful to somebody, but whatever else Wikipedia is not, I'm pretty sure it's not Consumer Reports. Unencyclopedic. --Stellmach 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the keep votes seem to be saying to keep because it's useful. I think this is true so far as the information is accurate (which I have doubts about). However, plenty of things are useful without belonging in an encyclopedia. Can anyone explain how this is encyclopedic? Ace of Sevens 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't List of Region Free Xbox Games be considered for deletion too? It's basically the same thing AStaralfur 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant policy violation. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see how the nom's assertion is original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not encyclopedic?

en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (n-skl-pd-) n.

   A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

this is just that, whats not encyclopedic about it? if wikipedia starts deleting things like this that i reference daily then to he!! with wikipedia i say.

• Keep Useful information, we have lists of other things, and I see nothing wrong with this list. Havok (T/C/c) 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Dex Award

Sorry... I must nominate this article, even though I love Eurovision to bits. This is non-notable, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopædia - at least, not as its own separate article. Nothing against eurovisionhouse.nl, but.. even that itself would not be suitable, as per WP:WEB (not even eurosong.net (my own site) or esctoday.com need encyclopædia articles). This "award" given by the website is certainly even less encyclopædic. Delete EuroSong ^talk 13:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this award has gained quite a bit of publicity in the media, and notability is not a good criteria anyway. I can expand on that later but have to go now :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, has it? First I heard of it having gained publicity! Well Bravada, you're the one fixed on references :)) - therefore this article needs appropriate references which show the fact that the award has had publicity. I guess this is offline publicity, because a Google search returns little beyond what is written on fan websites. As it stands, the article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic, so currently fails WP guidelines. How's your hand? EuroSong ^talk 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:WEB and general notability policy. doktorb _words^deeds 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: relisting 30/07/06, which in your star-time is merely the twenty-ninth. Try to catch up! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Skinmeister 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... an award given by a website that fails WP:WEB doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but add eurovisionhouse.nl to the Eurovision Song Contest links section.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun Zacharia

Fails WP:BIO, tagged for Speedy but tag removed. They guy is a CTO for a non-notable company, few Google hits, etc. Rklawton 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:VAIN, and WP:AUTO VoiceOfReason 14:54, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zidane-Hsu Investments

Fails WP:CORP, adverSPAM, etc. Rklawton 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no references, 0 google hits on the company name or Kerre Zidane, plenty of hits for Chun-Nan Hsu but none seem to have anything to do with this firm, therefore in my opinion the article fails WP:V. - Bobet 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, no WP:V, assumed WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn - if one of their investments tanks, do they headbutt the CEO? NawlinWiki 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Boooh. Fan-1967 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment One of the funniest arguments ever. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spamvert for a non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:35, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Anderson

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:36, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Bayes

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:38, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Brace

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing that makes this person notable is that he is a "district" politician. That is not to say that he will aspire to more in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (in that sense). -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Civil

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is already Kettering Borough Council which gives their names, party and ward, and election dates, which is more than enough info on each. Martín (saying/doing) 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:40, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Corazzo

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Totally non-notable with an electorate of maybe 10,000. Although I wouldn't object to this bunch of nominees for AfD merged into one article Kettering Councillors. --Richhoncho 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 16:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:42, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Freer

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Happy to delete other Kettering councillors, but I think being Council leader is just enough to assert notability. Martín (saying/doing) 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Leadership of local council not encyclopedically notable. OMG, I just realized they have all have this huge template box too: Template:Kettering_politics. Suggest that be nominated for template deletion after we're done with the individual councillor articles. Did someone in the Kettering Town Hall IT department suddenly discover wikipedia? Bwithh 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, sorry, but not even the leader of the city council of a small city is probably not encyclopedically notable enough for inclusion. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Leadership of the council is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Davewild 08:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No it isn't. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Groome

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• "Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:43, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Lamb

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Parker (politician)

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. Damn, is the entire city council on here? --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Smith-Haynes

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable.Bwithh 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Titcombe

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Martín (saying/doing) 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable.Bwithh 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Whyte

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Martín (saying/doing) 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. (pant pant) Bwithh 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local politicians aren't encyclopedically notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:45, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Varos

This has been prodded by two different editors and removed twice by by the same editor. So I am bringing it here for discussion. My opinion is still Will O'The Wisp although a re-write is definately necessary, together with some classification.--Richhoncho 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - speaking as the original prodder. Punkmorten 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lip Smacker

Unsourced, unverifiable list of lip gloss flavors. A lot of the ones on here I can't find anywhere, like the arctic flavors. Delete as unverifiable. The article Lip gloss has a decent enough summary on Lip Smackers already. Metros232 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Yomangani 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable brand, hopefully it can be cleaned up and made more an article and less a list. Notability is not in question: I get 81,900 Google hits for "Lip Smackers" (in quotes) and a further 32,800 for "Lip Smacker", (also in quotes). The actual official name seems to be just "Smackers", which brings 329,000 hits but many unrelated. It has a 1200+ member fanlisting, and even gets a handful of Google News hits (pretty trivial ones, admittedly, but it does get press). Definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for info:it had a wikify tag put on it nearly as soon as it was created and hasn't been touched since (admittedly that was only 10 days ago but that's nearly a lifetime on WP), so I don't see much interest from anybody cleaning it up. Yomangani 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft and for WP:V issues. Also mention in the main lip gloss article is fine, but not notable enough for its own article Bwithh 16:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lip Smackers used to have an article [35]. But on April 19th this was changed to a redirect to lip gloss. Metros232 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment On that basis it seems this article is wrongly named. Also, it appears to be an inferior version of the article that was merged without opposition. Yomangani 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft. AgentPeppermint 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pretty wretched article, but the brand is notable and its a worthy topic. Vickser 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - the contents of this article don't form a decent base for improvement. Nothing to salvage. Delete and start again if anybody wants to try. -- Whpq 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, with no prejudice against an actual article at this title. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)