Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 6

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar the Last Airbender 2007 calendar

Advert for a calendar that doesn't exist yet, and would probably be considered cruft of some variety if it did. Artw 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No context/Advertising/Crystal balling --IslaySolomon 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystalcruft ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystallized adcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Penelope D 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above, and most likely below. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now per above including nom. --Domthedude001 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As an actual Avatar fan, I highly doubt an entire article can be created about a calendar of this franchise. PCEevee ^talk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, why not speedy??? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:00, 8 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richie Campbell, Pianist

WP:COPYVIO from here DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a copy-vio, I'm surprised no one caught that. Yanksox 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Clicking 'random article' is a habit of mine - you do find a lot of tat!! Also this article should be WP:VAIN as well the creating author is User:Campbellsongs DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Get-noticed removed the Afd tag, it has been re-attached DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Seems to be non-notable. However, it seems to not be a copy-vio. See the page cited by David. The site seems to compile information from the web and lists Wikipedia's "new pages" page as its source. It also lists the full article as being the one at Wikipedia, seemingly sanctioning the page, but it has a copyright tag at the very bottom of the page, which is odd. Either way, delete as vanity and non-notable. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yanksox Alphachimp ^talk 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per copyright and notability. If I saw it in Newpages, I would've put it under db-bio. --Domthedude001
• Delete; I have put the {{copyvio}} tag on the page in place of the copyvio content (remember, we should always do that when we detect copyright violation!) You'll have to look in the history for the article content now. Mangojuice^talk 04:21, 7 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 of the nomination was Keep. - Bobet 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tronichord

Non notable musical instrument, even the article says It is very rare and even on the internet you won't find much information about it. DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Both this and Omnichord seem to be very similar to the infamous Stylophone. Maybe some sort of merge might be in order? --IslaySolomon 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How can a musical instrument be non-notable? thats like saying we shouldn't have curium on wiki because it isn't used much for anything, pls allow for organic expansion! -- Librarianofages 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but should definitely be expanded. The article is such a letdown: "this is an instrument that no one knows much about and so this is the end of the article." Pascal.Tesson 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my own comment: I added the expand tag to the article. Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep After a Google image search it seems the Tronichord is quite distinct from the Omnichord: [10][11]. However to justify itself this article needs to explain in what way the Tronichord is distinct from, say, a standard electric keyboard. It also needs to explain why "Tronichord" is a distinct intrument and not just a brand name. In light of the Stylophone, I don't doubt that these are both true. --IslaySolomon 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A generic musical instrument cannot be non-notable, however this brand of this particular musical instrument, (i beleive) is non-notable. As a parallel example - washing machines are notable white appliances, however there should not be an article on each and every brand and model of washing machine ever produced ... Wikipedia would end up looking like a Comet catalogue. Anyway, this page is here for discusion and that is what we are doing, so it is working !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • comment you phrased it wrong, you should of pointed out that you thought that this was only a brand-name and which would strenghthen the case for deletion greatly. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Fair enough !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Omnichord & Redirect. A Tronichord, from what I have been able to learn, was just a forerunner of the Omnichord (and made by the same firm), so effectively different from the Omnichord only in terms of its name and its being a bit primitive. The Omnichord then went on through various models and upgrades, whilst the Tronichord became the obscure ancestor we see before us. Here's a useful site. --DaveG12345 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this somehow notable? Any verifiable reliable sources? I'm looking at the music section of Toys "R" Us and there are all kinds of minor variations of electronic gadgets that go "plunk". Little Tikes Kazoozaphone? My First 18-Key Tabletop Piano? Cindarella Karaoke Player? Weregerbil 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikify and Expand, per above --Domthedude001 18:19, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gettleman

Non-notable clutter. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, nor a site for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to slap their last name into in some attempt to feel important. Gnrlotto 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteGnrlotto 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete genealogy cruft. --Icarus 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory of last names. Punkmorten 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, above and notability. --Domthedude001 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (possibly speedy?) per nom -- Steel 23:52, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BMX Backflips

Non-notable flash game - doesn't even give a link! Artw 01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Egg, beans, chips and spam. Totally NN. --IslaySolomon 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely fails to assert any notability in accordance with WP:WEB Alphachimp ^talk 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if Teagames was deleted... Why would one of its games (in which are less notable than Teagames is) be still there? --Domthedude001

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metromix

Non-notable local TV show -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete So its a TV channel that shows programs and has presenters .... WOW !! Distinctly WP:NN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable local TV show. Reads like an ad. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alphachimp ^talk 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Domthedude001 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with or redirect to RedEye, a Chicago Tribune spinoff which has a regular feature of the same name. Some local programs in Chicago are notable, like Svengoolie, but nobody I know really cares about this show. Zagalejo 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Chicago native)

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dvr face

Neologism, fails the Google test. Putting up for AfD at author's request after he removed prod. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As nom says, Google kills this dead with a breathtaking zero relevent results[12]. Besides the phenomenon has been around since the first VCRs and no-one gave it a name back then. --IslaySolomon 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and Google. --Domthedude001 18:38, 6 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 of the debate was speedily deleted by Kimchi.sg. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phytotechnology Laboratories

Seems to be an ad, non-notable --BradBeattie 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. No Gnews hits. Ghits are only ads/non-notable mentions. — ERcheck (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like an ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Their product line includes: amino acids, buffers, gelling agents and Vitamins: in other words, SPAM. --die Baumfabrik 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CORP --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and notability. --Domthedude001 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per db-bio ~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I found evidence that it's a real company. It's listed as a supplier to the U.S. Department of Agriculture at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9985 and it was an exhibitor at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Biologists at http://www.aspb.org/meetings/pb-2005/currentexhibitors.cfm Perhaps in those contexts it's notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 7 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 of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth C. Torres

Seems to be spam for the company --BradBeattie 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Assuming your above nomination for Phytotechnology Laboratories results in deletion (as it should be per nom), this can be simply {{db-bio}}'d. (Actually, I don't see any reason why Phytotechnology Laboratories could not be {{db-bio}}'d as well.) RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - notability does not meet WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Phytotechnology must go, so should Torres. I'd delete the article under WP:VAIN too; president with a capital P? That's trouble with a capital T. --die Baumfabrik 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above including nom.... Seems like the contributor, Maldavian, has one purpose: to advertise. --Domthedude001 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per db-bio ~Kylu (u|t) 04:03, 7 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 of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. Mangojuice^talk 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac smith

Vanity, not notable B.d.mills 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Official website records 261 hits (two of those are me), they launched their first EP last Sunday, you can order it by email, they have a myspace, they used to be called "Alien Vomit", their myspace has had 431 profile views, [insert non-notable band cliché here], [insert non-notable band cliché here]... --IslaySolomon 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although I've recently become very wary of suggesting this, I think this could have been {{db-band}}'d --IslaySolomon 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google search for "Zodiac smith" (including double quotes to search for the exact phrase) returns 19 hits. And to IslaySolomon, I didn't know about the db-band template. Thanks for the information. --B.d.mills 03:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Domthedude001 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-band/A7 ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sotones Records

Independent record label that, based on Google search, doesn't seem to exist beyond a few myspace pages. Listed web page for the company is nothing but a banner and a poster for a concert last February. There is no other website content, and no links from that page. Fan-1967 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete there's no suggestion anywhere that they've been involved in promoting any significant artists or made any money. In fact their myspace profile even describes them as a "company" (their quotation marks). --IslaySolomon 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Which raises some questions about the band article for Leisure (band). - Fan-1967 04:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. If only Myspace and Wikipedia could exist in seperate universes....HumbleGod 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• We were just trying to write about a label locally important to us (fans here in southampton) - I guess there's a difference between our local area and the wider world. New to wikis, so won't complain if a delete does go ahead.--Comrade jo 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Domthedude001 18:49, 6 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 of the nomination was No consensus to delete, therefore keep. - Bobet 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional military organizations

This does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is perfectly suitable. It falls into the same category as List of fictional United States Presidents and such things like that.--kralahome 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I'm all against useless lists, but this is perfectly fine. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems appropriate and moderately relevant to certain topics. Michael 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable. What fictional universe doesn't have a military organization (or eight) in it? Nifboy 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Good point Nifboy! -Seidenstud03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, the H.P. Lovecraft universe has no fictional military forces, nor does Flatland, The Space Triolgy, Cordwainer Smith's work, King Kong used the very real US Air Force, Blade Runner or Minotry Report movies mention no militaries, Berstein Bears, various Newpaper Comics, the list goes on and on with fictional universes WITHOUT fictional militaries. The list is maintainable, and the pagehistory has shown that various editors have worked very hard to see that each army is verified and categorized properly. I may also note that this list is also quite helpful in catching anyone who makes vanity material and easier to track down other vanity material on wikipedia and elete it. --Eldarone 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The fact that a couple of fictional universes don't have fictional military organizations speaks only to differences in author creativity, nothing else. I don't think it's entirely relevant to this discussion, as a large majority do. Alphachimp ^talk 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wow, type in "List of fictional" in the search function and you get all kinds of ridiculous lists, like List of fictional apes... Does this stuff really belong in an encyclopedia? Maybe a "Wikilists" or a "Wikifiction" project is in order. Should I add "List of breakfasts eaten by fictional admirals"? ;)--Cheese Sandwich 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Slipperly Slope Fallacy. There is a difference between keeping what militaries exist and what an general ate for lunch in the history books. The List of Fictional Miliatries, while fictional, are still relevant enough than say what someone had for breakfast. --Eldarone 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. This seems like a useful list, but there's an infinite number of things that could go on it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. -- Koffieyahoo 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Fictional Military Organizations is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc.Etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. --Eldarone 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is perfectly maintainable, useful and interesting. Penelope D 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. It's only maintainable by "someone else" I'm sure, and I'm glad someone finds it useful and interesting, neither of which I do. I don't think reader-interest ought to be a notability factor, since I suspect that would lead to deleting math and science articles like crazy. Tychocat 06:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot ever be complete, and isn't particularly useful as a navigation aid. It's just a "List of things with a common attribute". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Eldarone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find these "Lists of fictional..." things useful and entertaining. I don't understand why list deletion advocates often cite that the list must be "complete" when no Wikipedia article will ever be "complete". --Canley 09:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lists that are so broad that they cannot ever be comprehensive are generally "idiosyncratic non-topics", per the deletion policy. This is just a bunch of things that are all foo, which is an idiosyncratic non-topic. There's no possibility for overview, because there's nothing you can say about all (or even most) of these things besides the fact that they're fictional military organizations. This illustrates no trend or topic, and there cannot ever be an accompanying article nor can this list ever be even half-way comprehensive. No article on Wikipedia is ever properly complete, but proper articles can be comprehensive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man In Black. Is the list entertaining? Not particularly for me, but I'm sure it is for some, but that's not really material to this discussion. Is the list maintainable? It's certainly not the worst offended I've seen, but, as has been said, it has very little chance of becoming comprehensive. Is the list useful? Not unless you already have prior knowledge of the subject, and if you have said knowledge, the list pretty much fails to augment it. That leads me to believe it's unencyclopaedic and better off gone. Plus, a lot of people would be upset to learn that the British Army is fictional. GassyGuy 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment #2: I started a discussion here on the general topic of lists of fictionals. --Cheese Sandwich 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and CategorizeDelete per Man in Black and Gassy Guy. Despite the poor sorting of a category (alphabetical), it is still a heck of a lot better than having articles like this. Alphachimp ^talk 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nifboy and Coredsat; so incomplete as to be an indiscriminate list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks ok to me. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: List criteria is far too broad. List of fictional United States Presidents on the other hand is a far more targetted list. It's a lot easier to actually compare and contrast characters from different series on that list. But this list is so broad and long that I doubt anyone would it find it useful except to waste time adding more cruft to it. Fails WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a good article, with encyclopedic content, that many people may find very useful. J Milburn 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - one of the cruftiest lists I've ever seen. The definition of 'military organizations' is ludicrously broad - essentially meaning 'any fictional group who have engaged in, or are prepared for, organised violence'. As it stands, it contains Starfleet, the Brotherhood of Nod and the A-team. Seeing as organised violence is a common theme in fiction, there is essentially no limit to this list. You might as well have a List of fictional lovers. --Nydas 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Starfleet, the A-Team and Nod are still miliary forces. Starfleet was used in the Dominion Wars as the armed forces of the Federation, The A-Team are by diffintion mercenaries: soldiers hired for various actions, and he Brotherhood of Nod is still organized as a military force, although terroist as well. We have strict standards of what is a military force. --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - would those strict standards allow the Power Rangers onto this list? I can't see any particular difference between them and the A-team, GI Joe, Star Fox, People's Front of Judea, etc.--Nydas 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above, and Wikify. --Domthedude001 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: In my opinion, a good list should have some sort of specific cross-referencing use, IE: An index. Or, a good list can give interesting information on its topics, IE: List of fictional United States Presidents. A good list also has a narrow scope and sticks to it, in this article, the scope is too broad, such as to include government-sponsored militaries, and mercenary corporations which, in some cases, aren't even "military", IE: The A-Team. Not exactly listcruft, but, not exactly useful either. JJJJust 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment' - The A-Team is still a mercenary force, a group that gets paid for military activities. The list only includes, and only, military forces. Throughout history there have been many different types of militaries groups, from small Freelancers to Rome's Voleenteer armies to Warrior caste to paramilitary forces. There is such a board variety of fighting forces in real life as well --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: While I recognize the A-Team as a mercenary force, I do not recognize them as military and I do not recognize them as an organization and therefore discount their inclusion in the list, and by extension, discount the rationale, scope, and viability of the list. JJJJust 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The A-Team is still a mercenary company, dispite it's small size. It's like saying a Mom and Pop store isn't a bussiness because they don't have 20 stores. Size dosn't matter. If you have a problem with The A-Team being on the list, then go the discussion page and debate it. --Eldarone 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's symptomic of this list's problems. What can you say that applies to both Starfleet and the A-Team? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course not, the A-team is a small Mercenary force that's sort of like a special ops team for hire. Eventually, the A-Team does become part of a larger military agency in the last season. Starfleet is the Military and exploration arm of the United Federation of Planets built more along the lines of traditional military forces. Starfleet is chartered by the Federation, overseen by polticians, and is diffinately a much largeer organization. But both Starfleet and the A-Team are still trained, professional military forces, regardless of size or wither they get paid or not. What exactly is the problem though? I don't quite understand what the problem is. Do you have a problem with Mercs being classsifed as Military? --Eldarone 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • There's no topic, just a shared attribute. There's nothing you can say about these things as a group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes there is a topic for this list: "Fictional" as in non real, "Military Organization" is the term chosen becaused there is a variety of Military forces, from regular Armed Forces, to Rebels, Mercenaries, Militia, and even culturaly based warriors. Nothing to say as a group? All these are fictional Military forces. That is the topic. If you have issues with the article , then go to the discussion page and discuss it with the editors there. --Eldarone 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, this is such a broad list that it isn't a topic, just a list of things that have a single shared attribute, like a "List of blue things" or "List of three-word phases." My problem with this list can be resolved by deleting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
            • It's not a broad list. Every single unit on that list is a Military Force, by diffition (from Dictionary.com):military- adj 1: of or relating to the study of the principles of warfare. All these orgziation have to deal with WARFARE, they are Fictional, must be a group, and they have to be from a notable source. They do not share a single artbute, they all share several attributes. --Eldarone 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Not all of these organizations deal with warfare (I see several exceptions, mostly untested defense groups, mercenaries, and terrorist groups), and nothing in the introduction implies that this is true. All these things seem to have in common is one shared attribute: they're fictional military groups. Just like "things that are blue" and "people with red hair", there's no topic, just a shared attribute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Shmila 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Green caterpillar 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful information for browsing if maintained. Dpv 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Canley. 12.9.180.18 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indented vote by anon user. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man in Black and Coredesat. I really can't see how this will ever be useful, it's just too broad. BryanG^(talk) 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and being unencyclopedic. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep any article with over 500 edits in its history, over a period in excess of 2 years. AndyJones 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainably broad. Anything that includes the A-Team and Starfleet needs to be tightened, and I don't see how that can be done without a rename/reboot. Someone may want to userfy this and start it over with better list criteria. Lists tends to accumulate edits, so AndyJones' reasoning is not persuasive to me. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list for authors who wish to create new fictional military organizations. A "cheat sheet" of sorts. Silly but handy. Flying Jazz 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the list is useful in crosschecking with existing military units, fictional or real, as well as links to related articles in science fiction, fantasy, military fiction, and literature. The list is also maintainable, as the editors of the page have removed and recategorized hundreds of unrelated, misplaced, or non-existant links and entries over the past 2 years of the articles. I do believe there will now be a much tighter hand on submission to this article, with the addition of small descriptions for each category instead of links to articles related to the category. --YoungFreud 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category. Just a list if links. Limited categorization can be duplicated with subcategories. Eluchil404 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's all good.--Tomtom9041 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - A good and handy article User:Ominae 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and useful. - CNichols 01:54, 11 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Simonaire

His only claim to fame seems to be that he is a candidate. Article written like an advertisement, not NPOV. No vote from me. Dipics 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my comments on the article's talk page. Even if he were elected to the state legislature, he would not deserve an article. As a candidate, he certainly doesn't. And the article looks like it was straight from his campaign literature, complete with the photogenic family. Fan-1967 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My belief was that I was following the Wikipedia instructions for "Candidates_and_elections"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.154.12 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Per the discussion on Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, I think that it would be more appropriate to write an article on the election itself then perhaps have each candidate redirect to that page. The candidates and elections page is pretty specific that the article on the election itself should come first. Dipics 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands now. A significant clean up may change my mind. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have the sneaking suspicion that this was used as a promtonal tool. I tagged an earlier version as A8. Yanksox 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections proposed policy - election article first, non-stubby individual articles thereafter. --DaveG12345 04:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; this sort of stuff has to be nipped in the bud. It's a shame, though; he's a family man and knows what the community wants. So, Bryan, what's your policy on a replacement for Trident? --die Baumfabrik 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the state of Maryland is building missiles these days. Fan-1967 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A candidate, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? --Calton | Talk 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) Right, let's replace career politicians with amateur politicians, it's worked so well at the White House. (2) My spider sense tells me that once he gets in he'll do anything to hang on forever. (3) Seven kids? Kill the planet, why don't you? (4) That sweater -- uh, no. (5) Oh yeah -- non-notable candidate for a State Senate seat, and not likely to win once voters see that his youngest "daughter" is actually a stuffed doll. Herostratus 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – Ðra 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all possible speed. This is a campaign ad. Wikipedia is not free ad space. And if his opponent had piffle like this as his article, it'd need to be deleted, too. (There are a bunch of political wonks out there posting 'if you delete my boss' ad, you have to delete their opponent's article too!' Not so. We're not here to destroy a good article just because your people posted crap.) --DarkAudit 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is a candidate in the primary. Per the Washington Post, the favorite for the Republican nomination in this race is Donald H. Dwyer, Jr., who's had an article here since 2004. People may want to look at it. He's a state legislator looking to become a state senator. Fan-1967 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no question. You know the article is bad when it says '...seven wonderful^{[citation needed]} children...' J Milburn 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above, strongly including Calton. --Domthedude001 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that most of the objections thus far are from people that have an axe to grind with either Bryan's politics or prolificacy. If he has broken some rule as defined in Wikipedia's Candidates and elections, I have not seen that cited thus far.

--Nurchster 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment One of the first rules listed is that one should only create articles for the candidates after the article for the election. Have you seen such an article? Fan-1967 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Reviewing the entries above, I see no comments at all on his politics. The article reads like something straight out of a candidates website. The concerns seem to be about his notability or lack thereof. And, having given it some further thought, I am changing my abstain to the vote listed here. Dipics 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is so lacking in anything substantive that I don't see how anybody could object based on his politics. There's nothing here to tell you what they are. Fan-1967 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - promotional/ad. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Mangojuice^talk 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is the only option here. RFerreira 07:48, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Poingi

Possible WP:VAIN, Fails WP:MUSIC the only ghits are for MySpace and other blogs etc DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. -Seidenstud 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. when they start citing their own myspace page, it's descended into vanity. Xrblsnggt 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, it is a borderline CSD A7 --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Domthedude001 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, does not establish notability -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deleet per nom--Macarion 17:56, 7 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 of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD A7 - totally no assertion of their own notability whatsoever. Kimchi.sg 09:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lock legion

Lacks any sort of notability Seidenstud 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Non-notable group. Dipics 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "The Lock Legion is a group that was first made on Newgrounds.com and was made as a joke to parody the Clock Crew, which had clocks on the faces of inanimate objects, except the Locks have lock faces or combination knobs." - Quite the most baffling introduction I have ever read. I'm assuming that this article is about the website locklegion.com. If so, then it fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. --IslaySolomon 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete references several other unnotable topics resulting in a pile of non-notability that has reached critical mass. Xrblsnggt 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:45, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vermicide

Unsourced speculation and crystal-ballism. Would have prodded but the large amount of vandalism for such a small article suggests the prod wouldn't survive. Opabinia regalis 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. ghits imply that it is legit, and Mars Volta is certainly notable enough -Seidenstud 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I got a ghit total of 4[13]. This is a crystal ballism. Yanksox 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment for completeness' sake, I got 921 without "Group" in the search, but that doesn't make any of those hits reliable sources, and it doesn't make an as-yet-unreleased song encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crystal ball. user should resubmit when it becomes real.Bridesmill 03:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mars Volta are definately notable as is there discog. However, this is only "rumored" to be their next single and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no confirmation so therfore it will probably get deleted, but it's almost guaranteed to be the single, and we're most likley going to delete this article only to recreate it a few weeks later. Zopwx2 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not speculate about what could or could not happen. There is a possibility that the sceanario you listed will happen, there is also the possiblity that it could not happen. Wikipedia is really designed to function in a manner of observation and not speculation. Yanksox 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• ATTENTION: KEEP IT. The Admin of The Comatorium, Theory, who has direct ties to the band, accidentily revealed this song would be the single. A member asked "Can we talk about it once it's released as a single" and Theory replied with "Yes, you can". It's in a thread somewhere. It will be the single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.55.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Two things. First, please don't post your comments at the top of the debate above the nomination. Second, a comment "in a thread somewhere" doesn't cut it - please see WP:RS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:RS hasn't been recently revoked, has it? Weregerbil 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They aren't going to release a 7 minute long single --Macarion 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. It's rumored to be... is not good encyclopedic language. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Domthedude001 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's no point in deleting this article. If it is most likely the single then it will need to be made again as it is now a part of the Mars Volta's single discography on wikipedia. War machine09 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't for speculation. And it really isn't that much trouble to just remake the article when the information is confirmed. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:01, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Doiron

This is an unencyclopedic entry with a great many problems. The statements concerning nominations for the "Governor General's Prize" [sic] and the Griffin Poetry Prize are incorrect. A Google search for something called the "Governor General's Peace Prize" receives one hit: this very Wikipedia article. Doiron is a little-known figure whose last two books were issued by a print on demand house. This article goes to great lengths in an attempt to raise his profile; and in doing so reveals its point of view. I'm not convinced that there is no place for an article on Doiron in Wikipedia, however I do feel that the exising article should be deleted. Victoriagirl 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A Google search verifies that he is indeed a poet; however, this article is unverifiable on many points, and I personally find the claim of 20,000 poems rather dubious. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a case of fraudulent self-promotion. Geoff NoNick 02:16, 9 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 of the debate was Speedy delete author request

[edit] Mohisen Al-Jamaan

Rather obvious nn hoax. Speedily deleted by Blnguyen, recreated by the original author, and the history restored by me as no CSD was cited. Delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced and unverified. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense a1 = hoax.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#A1 "does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I'm sorry, but I don't believe this can be speedily deleted. Deleted, sure, but not speedily. What's the rush? AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (but no grounds for a Speedy) as WP:HOAX according to this he's a Saudi fotballer anyway DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax as above. If this article was previously deleted, would it be possible to speedy it as {{db-repost}}? (This is question, not a suggestion). --IslaySolomon 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, a hoax is not a speedy per WP:CSD. Yanksox 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am the creator of this hoax and give permission for speedy deletiontitansfan290 05:00, 6 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 of the debate was CSD A6, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR vile shite - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbi rabbit

Not a "popular series of children's books" as claimed in the article, but a single webcomic site, [14]. Nothing on Amazon and very few Ghits (mainly the WP article and mirrors for "Rabbi rabbit"). Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete factually inaccurate article for non-notable (and extremely suspect) website --IslaySolomon 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable +/- hoax. Ifnord 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax (untruthful article) and non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious hoax. There's no way this is a "popular series of children's books". --Icarus 06:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - likely hoax. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per notability. --Domthedude001 19:03, 6 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 of the nomination was delete both. Sango123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Eggins

Vanity article about a non-notable artist. Ghits: [15].

I am also nominating:

• Spiralysis

as a protologism created by the same author of the above article. There are a bunch of Ghits on the term, [16], but few that appear to be related to the meaning given in this article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Both as a WP:NEO by a WP:NN. --DaveG12345 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (both) Xrblsnggt 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, fails WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, and WP:N. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both absolutely vanity. Danny Lilithborne 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, vanity Fram 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - this particular one has been speedied before Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. --Domthedude001 19:05, 6 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 of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demeter International

I don't think this stands up to WP:CORP Please discuss below !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment They're pretty big in Germany: de:Demeter (Marke). That's all I got. ~ trialsanderrors 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe we should mark it up for translation then??? I can't understand a word of German - is it the same company ??? DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, by the microcontent we got and by the website. Worth putting up for translation. ~ trialsanderrors 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if translated. Delete the microstub, and leave open to re-creation once the German article is translated. Looks like an at least marginally notable company. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and put on the articles for translation log. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Q Do we need to keep this microstub around for a translation request? It seems to me that we should vote it off the island and let the translators do their work. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if translated per above. --Domthedude001 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Demeter is an internationally recognized certification system as anyone with google can find out. As for the article being deleted merely because it is a microstub, well, it isn't a microstub now. --Ezeu 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good enough to Keep ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 7 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 of the debate was daftly deleted as CSD A7 - no assertion of group's notability. Kimchi.sg 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DAFTY

Contested speedy. The youth organization for a temple in Dallas. Since just about every house of worship I've ever heard of has such an organization for its teenagers, I can't imagine that each one deserves an article. Fan-1967 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable group of people, WP:BIO & WP:ORG refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN as above. -- IslaySolomon 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable group. Ifnord 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to me it's a local chapter of NFTY, which makes it non-notable as a standalone. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most local chapters of youth organizations are not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. HumbleGod 08:05, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buy4Now

This article is an advertisement. It does not meet wikipedia criteria for corporate notability (i.e. Only around since 2000. Only has 25 customers, is not publicly traded) Xrblsnggt 04:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Insert Monty Python Reference Here -- IslaySolomon 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First though - it doesn't say 25 customers it says 25 retailers ie it gives customers acces to them, it also states it is Ireland's largest company of this sort ... I'm not sure if that makes it meet WP:CORP, but it is WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and such. R.E. Freak 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: meets CORP, fails SPAM. --die Baumfabrik 05:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete my site has a higher Alexa rank Computerjoe's talk 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn/spam.--Andeh 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Del4Now ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFLAX

Surely this fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB And is most assuredly WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - It's a recognised term in the development community, albiet one that's a personally I find a bit weird (Flash can call XML via HTTP without any intervening technologies these days). I wasn't aware that anyone had copyrighted the term, something that IMHO lessens it's usefullness considerably (see the Web 2.0 ruckus), but I don;t see that as a cause for deletion. Artw 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems I've been using the term wrongly - it is most usually used to refer to a specific library. However it's one with quite a large user base and an area that gets a lot of discussion.

On the negative side the aflax site links to Wikipedia for it's description of the technology... not a usuahe I'm sure should be encouraged. Artw 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see a deletion notice on the actual page? There it is! Artw 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hmmm ... not sure how I missed tagging it, but it isthere now !! The main reason for listing it was WP:SPAM as there are external links to the company website all over it. Maybe, if it is an important article, it can be de-advertised DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a "recognised term" in any sense of the word, just the name of a software library that isn't all that significant in the grander scheme of things. — Haeleth Talk 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I agree with Artw, this is a term used in the AJAX and Flash development community. Perhaps it could be merged into AJAX Computerjoe's talk 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

TBH That might be the same as deleteing it, as links to libraries don;t tend to last long there. Also I beleive prior versions of the AJAX page mentioned AFLAX, and that material hassince been removed. Artw 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Software libraries are not generally encylopedic. Vegaswikian 18:20, 10 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linster OS

NN operating system that some kid came up with. -Bill (who is cool!) 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "Under development in Microsoft QuickBASIC 4.5 and currently requires it" - Just a short BASIC program written by an individual for their own amusement. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, obviously. --IslaySolomon 05:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete giggles aside, "here's some junk I'm working on" is not an encyclopedic article. -- Xrblsnggt 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks as though this could become a good article, but at the current state, I feel it should be deleted. --Riley 05:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unlikely. This isn't even an operating system - it's a set of BASIC programs that display a rudimentary UI. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Check out the "corporate website", too (I wouldn't buy anything from it...). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Don't worry, the corporate site fails with a 404 as soon as you click the product link. Shame, I wanted to study their automotive division... --DaveG12345 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This could become good. Theres better QBasic GUIs at http://gui.jacobpalm.dk --[[User:Fun50083|
• Delete - Why is this even here? It's about a small BASIC program written most likely by a kid. It clearly fails WP:SOFTWARE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalSausage (talk • contribs)
• Delete, just some random hack that few people dare to use. I wrote a shell/email/log thingy for Commodore 64 in Basic, like, wow, three or five people besides me used it; do I get an article too? Good luck with the project, but I guess this just isn't article-worthy unless people are queuing to download it... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 7 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 of the debate was Speedy delete per csd a7--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex rickett

Article created by The main event9718 (talk · contribs), whose only three edits are in this article. Article has been prod'ed^[17] (No evidence of notability. High school athletes aren't notable, unless they are Lebron James or Greg Oden or someone of that caliber and cleared without comment.^[18] After some Google search (which returned the Wikipedia article for Alex Michael Rickett and less than 100 about Alex Rickett), I believe he fails WP:BIO, as he is only mentioned in a few pages but does not get interviews or features. ReyBrujo 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. A high school soccer player is not to be viewed on Lebron James' level. Once again, Geogre's predictive talents are borne out. Fan-1967 05:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, per the prod notice. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable at this stage of his career. NawlinWiki 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete currently not notable as a junior in high-school. DrunkenSmurf 14:58, 6 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 of the nomination was Delete, after discounting the 2 votes by anonymous users and the other 2 that were the users' first and only edits, there's a fairly clear consensus to delete. - Bobet 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewdas

This article about a "Radical Jewish Group" seems to fail in the notability area - there are plenty of ghits but apart from the groups own website, the rest seem to be MySpace, blogs and forums - also, there are no internal links to this article DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BIO. There is the Guardian article on it, which gives it a veneer of notability but not enough to meet WP:BIO#3. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nesher 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this phoney baloney. IZAK 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIO and WP:WEB by definition don't make space for radical groups outside the mainstream, because they depend on some form of mainstream support for their inclusion. Given this, and given that "notability" however defined is not an official requirement, I think less damage will be done by keeping articles of this sort (assuming they have ghits) than by deleting, them, which inevitably politicises WP in certain directions more than continuing to allow their inclusion would. Dogville 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Genuinely original organisation within Anglo-Jewry which, although new has a significant following and impact. Deleting would be a political act designed to silence voices of dissent within the jewish community.
• keep other articles about jewdas have appeared: on the jewish telegraphic agency http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=4/16/2006&stay=1&SubSectionID=87&ID=5566

and in Jewish Renaissance Magazine http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/current.htm (you see it in the contents but the article is not available online)

• strong keep PREVENT 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuckycat 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There is no other organisation like this within Anglo-Jewry at a time when radical voices are so vital to reinvigorate the community. It also does great parties. Jewdas needs the publicity to allow it to grow, so it must be kept here!

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

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

The result of the nomination was Delete. - Bobet 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India Defence

This reads like an advertisement WP:SPAM -- Xrblsnggt 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also like to point out the organization has been around barely a year. -- Xrblsnggt 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Suggestions: reduce to stub length based on verifiable info from reliable sources, and, for heaven's sake, take it out of Category:Military of India and put it in Category:Weblogs, where it belongs. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't a blog! Computerjoe's talk 14:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  Fine, "web-based newspaper" (however ridiculous that sounds). My point is that it has nothing to do with the military of India and no business being in that category. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN site Computerjoe's talk 14:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB Dpv 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. utcursch | talk 12:55, 10 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 of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 41st Airlift Squadron

Article created on 13 May {{context}} tag added on 24 May nothing done since - article only contains an imageDavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• But a cute one. Quick, does anyone want to turn this into anything? If not, Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - ...but it IS very cute. Artw 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone turns this into something fast. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Weak Keep but only if expanded. As is, it's an A1 candidate. --DarkAudit 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be a precedent for allowing articles for squadron strength airforce units. [19][20][21]--IslaySolomon 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and expand. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems legit, just make it a stub, and somebody write the article. Put it on some To Do lists, if nobody wants to do it. J Milburn 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable subject.--Runcorn 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And so Stubbed --DarkAudit 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. The Global site says that the 41st has been renamed 43rd Airlift Wing. Pope's Web site does not list a 41st. Redirect to Pope or a unit located at Pope. Fg2 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A Squadron and a Wing are rather different. If it was 'renamed' then with was the creation of a new unit. Military units have their own history and they have a history of being reactivated in the future so leaving this would seem the right thing. Of course some expansion would help. Vegaswikian 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have included some additional information in the history. This unit was active in WWII so it likely meets the notability requirements from that action alone. I think enough was added to address the issues that were behind the delete votes and they should be reconsidered. Vegaswikian 18:39, 10 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G0yz

Neologism. Often spelled with a zero, however I get 543 hits at Google^[22]. Only contribution made by G0y (talk · contribs). -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I find no reliable sources that this is a generally accepted or oft used term. GassyGuy 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete n0n-n0tabl3 ~ trialsanderrors (who also wonders what the term for a non-Jewish non-gay bi-curious male is, a g0y goy?) 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO. A Jewish ex-girlfriend once called me her "goy toy," and I'm pretty sure this isn't what she had in mind. HumbleGod 08:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete their base and kill thier d00dz Danny Lilithborne 08:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - huh? --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• This Y1d says Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in russia articles delete you, definition of neologism.--Andeh 20:24, 6 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 of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitutors

Neologism, POV, OR, essay. Wikipedia is not for things "coined by a cook at the Derrick Golf and Winter club on the 5th of July, 2006." I couldn't think of any category to speedy it, but this needs to be deleted. Fan-1967 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As WP:NEO and made up yesterday DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- WP:NFT -- MrDolomite 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as being even more neo- than most neologisms people try to pass off as articles. --Icarus 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:11, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opendisc

WP:SPAM advertising DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, certainly nothing on Google to pass WP:CORP from the standpoint of non-trivial articles. Tychocat 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert for a non-notable product. --Ezeu 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not only is it obscure, but it's also blatant spam. --ApolloBoy 00:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nominations. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ezeu -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TigerShark 11:53, 9 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 of the debate was Speedy delete csd g4--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigga know technology

Previously AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga know technology, speedied by me as a repost, and contested by another admin. I am re-submitting the article to AFD to get consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 05:51Z

• Delete again as nn. Discussion on an earlier article's talk page, Talk:Nigga Know Technology (different capitalization), laid out all the arguments. Alexa rank out of sight, no recognition from any notable sources. It's a really, really, really minor blog. Fan-1967 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB by a mile. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion yesterday DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like a Delete per not meeting WP:WEB, I'd say... it has generated a little buzz, but 62 Google hits on the string doesn't seem like enough buzz... let them do their own promotion and not use Wikipedia for that. Herostratus 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even close to meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank 1,037,616. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. To quote myself from last time, "nn blog, fails WP:WEB, and is a repeat offender. No reason for us to have to keep doing this." Sadly, all this still applies. HumbleGod 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per HumbleGod, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies to all for asking to reopen this debate, and my gratitude to Quarl. I feel we need consensus to delete here. Consensus will enable us to G4 it in the future when it's reposted. I have posted an expansive prior deleted version on the AfD talk page for all to review. I am also trying to track down a popularity ranking for this blog. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this does not meet WP:WEB and page protect it this time.--Isotope23 14:23, 6 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 of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiyohara Tama

De-prodded w/ no explanation. No claim of notability is presented in article. Only 11 unique google hits. Icarus 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, pending verification: Searching by her adopted name gives 88k google hits[23]. w:ja:ラグーザ (曖昧さ回避) lists her as a dablink, though the article itself isn't there (yet). If the late Edo period Japanese govt. did indeed invite her to teach western art, then that makes her plenty notable for an encyclopedia entry. I'll try to look it up in the library later today. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't search on her adopted name. But now that the AfD has been listed, I'd like to see how it plays out. Note that it wasn't she who was extended an invitation, it was her husband. That appears to be the explanation of how they were in the same country and were thus able to meet. The only claim made about her own abilities is that she "was herself a painter of great skill." --Icarus 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right you are! So much for hasty reading. A lot of the links from the Google search above seem to be in Italian, which I don't speak a word of, sadly. Maybe someone else will find some good evidence for her notability. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WBIS Online gives five four [I counted the summary paragraph by mistake] different reference works where she is mentioned. up+land 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it give any information on what context she's mentioned in? That is, would all wives of notable husbands (and vice versa) be listed in WBIS Online because of brief mentions in sources about their famous spouses? --Icarus 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It just gives the references, but as they seem to be about Japanes art(ists), I doubt that would be the case:

• Index of Japanese painters: compiled by the Society of Friends of Eastern Art. - Rutland [et al.]: Tuttle, [1959]
• Roberts, Laurance P.: A dictionary of Japanese artists: painting, sculpture, ceramics, prints, lacquer. - 1st ed. - Tokyo [et al.]: Weatherhill, 1976
• Frédéric, Louis: Encyclopaedia of Asian civilizations. - Paris: Frédéric [et al.], 1977-1984; 1987. - 10 vols. + Suppl
• Takamure, Itsue: Dai Nihon josei jimmei jisho. - Tokyo: Koseikaku, 1942

up+land 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the further info, Uppland! --Icarus 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but expand. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable outside of her hubby. Article needs expansion... and I thought that name sounded Sicilian. Crappy bfish translation:

"The extraordinary Commissioner, Prof. Serious Guglielmo, the Gallery of Modern Art has visited this morning, “and. Restivo”, meeting a group of Japanese journalists presents to Palermo, in these days, in order to visit the city. The foreign delegation, accompanied from the Serious Commissioner, has admired the work present in knows it Pompeiana and the sculptures of the palermitano artist Vincenzo Ragusa between which that from he created in terracotta and dedicated to the own one consorte, the artist Kiokara O'Tama, (Eleonora Ragusa), of Japanese origin and to a burlap that the pittrice, instead, has realized having represented a landscape of the own places of birth. The Commissioner, in the course of its visit, has manifested appreciation for the present collection in the Gallery, “that he testifies the immense profuse cultural wealth between l'800 and the 900, which indelebile patrimony of our earth and ringraziato the delegation of Japanese for the shown attention today with their presence”. Serious he has then met the director of the Gallery of Modern Art, Dr.ssa Antonella Purpura, manifesting them a plauso for the value of the present collections in knows them espositive. The director has donated to His Excellency a copy of the catalogue of the works that are found near the Gallery." [24]

I assume that this is a book of her work.[25]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Gay

Yet Another US Congressional candidate, otherwise unremarkable. A candidate, I stress, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She used to be a union rep, and now she's running for congress. Neither makes her notable. Come back if elected. Wikipedia is not a voters guide. Fan-1967 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. --Icarus 06:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yup, win or go home, per Fan-1967 above, sorry -- MrDolomite 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, peddle your wares at Campaigns Wikia. HumbleGod 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my previous comments in other AfDs. I still feel that major party nominees (not every primary candidate, though) for national legislatures merit inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just another candidate. Major party Congressional candidates are not notable merely on the basis of being the nominee. Wikipedia is not here to give them free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a campaign platform --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back if you win. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections proposed policy - election article first, non-stubby individual articles thereafter. --DaveG12345 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If we impose this criteria on this article, we will then have to, in fairness, delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. (100 articles? 200 articles? I do not know how many of them have "minimal" resumes. We, theoretically, could have 468 article deletion debates.) It would be best to have articles for all the major party Congressional candidates (even if they are only stubs). Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins. Just like a pro-life activist/sporting goods businessman did back in 1980..Congressman Chris Smith (Carol Gay's opponent). 72.82.175.4 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• ...we will then have to...delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins. Yep: and that's when they qualify for an article. Before? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree with the opinion above, this is a major party candidate for congress. If you delete this one, its only right to delete all the "candidates." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.118.133 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 July 2006.

• Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. Or were you under the impression that that was some sort of argument against? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: some clarity of language might improve the discussion. She is the Democratic Party nominee for the November 2006 general election for a seat in the House of Representatives. [26] Using the term candidate makes it seem like she could be be someone competing against a bunch of others to win a primary, which is not the case. John Broughton 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, pointless word games: tinker with the language a bit and you can suddenly change the facts. But whether she's a nominee, a candidate, a favorite son, a dark horse, a lame duck, a floor cleaner or a dessert topping, the fact remains that, when you strip out the fact she's running in a election, she fails the basic encyclopedic notability test. What has she done -- aside from becoming a nominee -- that merits her being the subject of an encyclopedia article? Which is what counts, since this isn't Congresspedia or Who's Who in New Jersey Elections. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Youngamerican. —chair lunch dinner™ ^talk 04:27, 11 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umedama Nabu

Can't see how this guy has any claim to notability Poss WP:VAIN as the only link is to his own (foreign language) website DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable manga artist. NawlinWiki 12:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete founder of a doujin group which itself has no article. Doujinshi are roughly the equivalent of fanzines, notability-wise, and while some notable artists got their start with doujinshi, involvement with them is not in itself a form of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak delete; in addition to his dojin work, he does have some published hentai manga that's stocked by places like Amazon, but I'm not sure it's going to have a wide enough circulation to qualify under WP:BIO. Neither he nor his circle have articles on the Japanese wikipedia, which is generally a bad sign for notability.
  Maybe if he steps up his anti-Bush political activism he'll qualify one day... — Haeleth Talk 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though I do read manga and doujinshi, this artist isn't notable on his own (per WP:BIO). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An article on Tsurikichi Doumei would be a Keep (their work is wildly popular), but not articles on the individuals involved. - Wickning1 06:51, 10 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 of the debate was speedy delete as author request. Kimchi.sg 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope Marie

Speedy contested by the author. Aspiring actress who doesn't seem to have actually done anything, but has high hopes. Fan-1967 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Smells like vanity to me, probably deserved the speedy. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I would like to say, that I wanted to make this page for Hope Marie because I honestly feel in my opinion that she supports a lot of good and moral stuff. Her music is powerful and helps people understand that life is short, you only live once and don't dwell on things. She is also a active member of the Army and likes to help people...I honestly feel that in the next year a lot more people are going to be hearing and seeing a lot of great things from Hope Marie. She is a role model to a lot of females and repersents good will and being strong for yourself in a positive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

• Comment I'm sure she's a very nice girl, but that doesn't change the fact that, up to this point, it appears her career hasn't even started yet. There are tens of thousands of people who want to be successful performers someday. We have articles about the people who have already done so. Fan-1967 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That is true, but what about the people that you don't hear about everyday, the one's who do more work than "well known" famous people. I understand what you are saying but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

• I have restored the db-bio tag, although the author keeps blanking it. There has been no assertion of notability. Speedy Delete. Fan-1967 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just delete it...whatever I guess we will have to wait for Hope Marie to become superfamous before we can see her page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete, technically the page's author has now supported deleting. HumbleGod 07:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Fan 1967. And to answer Firewhiskeyangel, no, Hope Marie doesn't need to become "superfamous" to merit an article. Notable will do. I hope you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with certain standards for inclusion; sites like Myspace and Livejournal are suitable for the people you don't hear about everyday. RGTraynor 09:14, 6 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 of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Bush

Surely, surely this is WP:NFT!!!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (CSD G1) and transwiki to Uncyclopedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: the above vote was cast when I was heavily sleep deprived and didn't read the article carefully. It read like nonsense because of the talk of locked rooms, divorces, and George Bush (who is, after all, commonly compared to monkeys for comedic purposes). Major apologies. This man clearly meets WP:BIO, as several people below have remarked. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't qualify for patent nonsense but it is nonsense DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep—This is not really nonsense at all. Interestingly enough, Joe Bush may meet WP:BIO due to his coverage in major publications. Ardric47 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - He might just barely squeak by WP:BIO - apparently reviewed by several media organizations, though original articles aren't available. By definition, can an individual organ grinder qualify as a notable person? If so, this guy's taken his act pretty far and would seemingly qualify as one of the most notable in his field. If not, delete. HumbleGod 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• It needs to be cleaned and checked for NPOV, but, as unlikely as it seems after reading the article, he may just make it per WP:BIO. Has been featured in such articles as [27] and [28] and [29]. "Joe Bush" "organ grinder" gets a fair number of Google hits (684). I say keep it. GassyGuy 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think you've got the wrong Joe Bush - There are no ghits under his "stagename" and none (that I can see) relating to Joe Bush, the organ grinder who entertained Ronald Regan and laterly George Bush (who incidentaly, the article claimed he was locked in a cupboard with leading to Joe's divorce) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• You think the articles are about other organ grinders coincidentally named Joe Bush? And the article says he was locked in his room with George, the name of his monkey, not George Bush. I agree that unverifiable facts need to be weeded out of the article, but if you read the articles to which I linked, a lot of these facts are corroborated. Update I should note that those articles are actually the same one article printed in a number of different newspapers. I'm not sure if that counts as multiple sources or not. GassyGuy 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Narrowing it down helps, but still lots of duplicates and not a lot of hits, fwiw. Though this page apparently has an audio clip of a radio interview. Couple that with the recent newspaper treatment listed in the article, and I'm leaning closer to "weak keep" per WP:BIO Still not close enough, though. HumbleGod 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah !!! I read it as being he was in the cupboard with George (Bush) not George (the monkey) ... I only saw your links after I'd posted (edit conflict) - it's defo not WP:NFT and I suspect he'll get through WP:BIO DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) <<< who is now tired & going to bed !!

• Changing my vote to weak keep. The LATimes article is cited, and I was able to find two radio pieces, including one on NPR (a discussion with Craig Ferguson, but subject is a central part of the interview, strangely). This wouldn't necessarily qualify one for notability, but he squeaks by WP:BIO with a few publicized pieces and the fact that he's the biggest name in his (admittedly dying) field. Lord, I didn't wake up this morning thinking I'd defend an article on an organ grinder, and I doubt I'd ever defend another, but I think this one's a keeper. HumbleGod 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm no wiki expert. But I say keep. I heard him on a radio show. His story was fascinating and he really knows the organ grinding business. While this page obviously benefits him, the story is that of old time America. Keep it. --SafeLibraries 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The newspaper article is an adequate source. The article could use a little work, but it seems to meet all the applicable policies. This looks more like a candidate for WP:DYK than for WP:NFT. — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is difficult to give the Google test much weight these days, but it should be noted that "Joe Bush" +monkey returns 13,300 hits, most of which are relevant. I suspect that is a decent number for an organ gringer and his monkey. In any case, this is legit, not made up in school one day, and is interesting enough to be notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense, what is an "organ grinder"? --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are you joking or are you serious? I thought organ grinders were a commonly known thing. Either way, if you WERE serious, it'd be a prime example of laziness, when the info is on this very site. Parsssseltongue 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Are you kidding me with the "what is an organ grinder" comment? People shouldn't delete things just because they don't know about or understand them. BTW, I heard the segment on NPR about this subject, too. Parsssseltongue 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just that type of information people will look for at Wikipedia. bbx 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, weak notability... but still enough to warrant inclusion under WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable individual (stablished by media references above - LA Times and radio shows) in a dying profession. Should be kept, as we may never see another notable organ grinder again, if Wikipedia is to be the repository of all knowledge, we need a few organ grinder articles and biographies. Build this up by all means. I don't think I've ever gotten a better laugh out of deciding what to say in an AFD before. GRBerry 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - trivial but fun and 'good enough' considering he's the last of the race. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:59, 8 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 of the debate was speedy delete by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] En fuego magazine

A magazine launched two months ago isn't notable - it's advertising Rklawton 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I was about to prod it myself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no ads please. HumbleGod 06:58, 6 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 of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernardo Giner de los Rios

Less than 200 google hits and many of them are not about the subject. I can't seem to find any notable sources on this one. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Keep, is indeed notable. --Coredesat talk 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete unless it is properly sourced. Eluchil404 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of sources. OSU80 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article itself describes his notability - much of which in itself appears minor, though is not insignificant, and the cumulative effect of which is to build up the body of an interesting man. A lot of his activity took place in the years before the internet, and in Spain, so finding a lot of sources is perhaps asking too much. However - he directed Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza for 9 years - and a search for that publication returns 25,700 ghits. The books mentioned do exist and are for sale. He was "Minister of Communications, Transport and Public Works" during the Spanish Civil War. He was "General Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic". He seems exactly the sort of person a modern and expansive and liberal encyclopedia like Wiki should be picking up and writing articles on. Added to which, the article is damn well written. SilkTork 14:29, 5 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, Ezeu 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think this is a bit of a WP:NN - he designed some schools and other buildings - isn't that what architects do ??? If none of his designs were particularly notable, then neither is he DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The article makes clear that his notability is for his writings more than his buildings. This man wasn't just an architect, he was also responsible for Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza for nearly 10 years - an influential and important publication. He wrote 50 Años de Arquitectura Española. He was also a part of the Repblic government during the Spanish civil war. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, I don't like to see well-written articles deleted. That said, it needs sources to prove notability, because right now Ghits aren't turning up much. I think an article on him may be of more use on Spanish WP than this site, but if someone can turn up sources for all this--even a print source from your local library--I'd feel okay with keeping it. HumbleGod 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per trialsanderrors 08:52 HumbleGod 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment From Wikipedia:Notability: The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). The man is verifiable. A search shows that he has done the things the article says he has done. The things he has done lift him above the ordinary, and while they do not make him famous they certainly show his life has coloured and enriched the lives of others. His contributions form part of the fabric of the history of Spain and in particular of the debate surrounding Spanish architecture. Ghits is a controversial test anyway and in this case is inappropriate given that this is a Spaniard (a country with a small interest presence) who was mainly active in the days before the internet and in a field which doesn't tend to attract the interest of internet geeks. My feeling is that the article itself (the contents of which are verifiable) gives a good explanation of how notable the man is. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - For the reasons given above in my previous comments. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Architect of schools, don't see it. No article in Spanish WP. | Keep after finding his book in the UC library. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't adding information about his book to the article help both the article and the deletion process? -- Mikeblas 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I posted all I could find on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This article meets notability criteria. Dajhorn 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, several print sources can be found with Google Book Search, and he seems to meet WP:BIO as a politician during a significant period of his national history. The article needs those sources adding, and it needs more information on his political activity. It does not, however, need deleting. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep among other things was a Government Minister during the Civil War. Dlyons493 Talk 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears to meet notability requirements --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:45, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Football Forum

Advertisement for non-notable web forum with only 138 members. PROD tag applied by Fan-1967, removed by only editor. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Good luck and enjoy, but not big enough for an article. Tyrenius 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom, typical spam/vanity for nn site.--Andeh 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 09:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB miserably DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear vanity. Vickser 02:41, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widows' revenge

Non-notable and very short-lived webcomic. 14 unique Google hits when searching for "Widows' revenge" "comic". Originally PROD'ed, PROD tag removed by only editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, was going to list this myself but didn't get round to it.--Andeh 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cute webcomic, but only 21 episodes. NawlinWiki 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another one that fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 12:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Steel 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A version is available on Comixpedia: Widows' Revenge. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Aeon 06:25, 11 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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my vote, based on arguments below. Fan-1967 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: #1,851,506 in Bücher. (Do I need to translate this?) Not a bad faith nomination, but both UT and F67 might want to do a little more research. Most of the G-hits I saw were WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Equivalent article was deleted by de: in January 2005 (discussion) Oldelpaso 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:NN translator / author DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Neutral as per further research by Universitytruth Has apparently been the subject of published work - I've added a References section. Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment/Question I checked out the links but failed to see that he's been the subject of published work. Where are you finding that? Universitytruth 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe the 3 entries in the References section are about him - that said, I don't have access to the printed works to double-check. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Further research shows that this author is WP:NN but has one big fan. See [30], where she posted not only her original (now deleted) German wikipedia article, but also on the same page the German wikipedia discussion, which leaned towards and resulted in delete. Note also that her sources include "the author's homepage" and "telephone conversation with the author." That is WP:OR and smells of WP:VAIN, no? Also, I still find no indication of anything having been written about GACK. I can tell you that Passagen Verlag is also not the most prestigious press... It has done some good work (translating texts of deconstruction into German), but also has a lot of weak pieces as well. It seems to me, with all good will, that GACK is a case-in-point: a deconstructivist wannabe who's gotten some dubious work published in this one press, but has failed to engage the rest of Austria, much less the German-speaking world, much less the English-speaking world. Hope this helps. Universitytruth 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per the German Wikipedia discussion --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a bad-faith nom. Non-notable author, not notable per the German Wikipedia discussion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The German discussion is mostly about vanity and the behaviour of the article's main editor. I think it would have survived if notability had been the only issue. There have been no such problems that I'm aware of with the en.wiki article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I should be taking a wikibreak, but look at this sentence in the article: "He self-identifies as a deconstructive novelist." It's the self-identification bit that is emblematic here. I can't find a single source of anyone else identifying him as any kind of novelist, much less a deconstructive one, much less a notable one. The only sources I find are on his own webpage, that of his good friend, who edited the German article, and the sales page of Passagen Verlag, which lists several of his works on their backlist. Is the bar for notability really this low? Universitytruth 20:31, 6 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 of the debate was early closure and delete as hoax. — Deckiller 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Dunn

pure hoax, users first page, registered today, photo is trying to link to a myspace image, couldn't find a thing on google related to him Andeh 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment his name is on United States men's national soccer team, the article says he plays for Arsenal F.C., but there's nothing on him there.--Andeh 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hoax Computerjoe's talk 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice.TheRingess 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. DarthVader 09:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant hoax. Oldelpaso 09:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete and total hoax. Qwghlm 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the user uploaded this image but didn't manage to get it in the article. :s Closing admin may want to delete it.--Andeh 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (and so tagged) as patent nonsense because of obvious hoax. Bio info largely cut and pasted from Eddie Pope, who is on the US national team; name "Pope" is still in the article at one point. NawlinWiki 12:26, 6 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 of the debate wasSpeedy keep per the nominator's withdrawal.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sibylle Berg

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Copied from article mentioned:
    • ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Published by the top names in German literature. Can you two dish it out on your respective talk pages? ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nearly six hundred unique G-hits on German Google, decent sales on Amazon.de. Once again, I'm quite interested in hearing nom's evidence for his assertions. RGTraynor 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I would think that an interested person would be able to somewhat expand the article and she does appear to be noteworthy Comment Some people can see merit or worthiness in an article were as others can't - If Universitytruth thinks a subject is WP:NN then that is fine and let everyone discuss it - that is why this page exists DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retract nom per t&e, RGT, DH: I think the article needs work, and will be glad to improve it myself as expiation for having initiated an AfD. It's precisely this input I wanted from other editors. Thanks for all of your comments. Universitytruth 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That's the spirit! An improved article is the best result possible. Dlyons493 Talk 17:46, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Giesbrecht

Non notable artist: no entry on allmusic.com, no Google hits for artist name in connection with any of his three records Fram 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HumbleGod 07:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:53, 6 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 of the nomination was No consensus. – Avi 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STORYFix

Non-notable TV show Computerjoe's talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, I'm not sure a BBC News 24 satirical program fails notability. But then, I don't live in the UK either. HumbleGod 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only 31 unique hits on Google UK; you'd think a significant BBC show would attract more attention in two months. RGTraynor 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think a weekly 5 minute section (out of 10080 minutes of broadcast each week) warrants it's own article. It is already mentioned in the main BBC News 24 article DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't even the case that every BBC 1 programme is automatically notable, and it certainly isn't the case for the digital/satellite channels, which have a considerably smaller audience. — Haeleth Talk 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per HumbleGod (I don't live in the UK either) --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with BBC News 24, if there is anything in the article not already in that one. I live in the UK, and have never heard of this. Admittedly, I watch very little TV, and do not have BBC News 24. This doesn't seem overly notable in itself. J Milburn 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have watched BBC News 24 (it's pretty much BBC World for Brits, and not many Brits sit and watch this channel, let me assure you) - this show is mentioned over at the main article ("but as yet there seems to be no fixed broadcast time"), and I think that's an accurate reflection re current notability in this case. --DaveG12345 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is being broadcasted by BBC (though I am not living in UK either). --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Notability is not inherited. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have watched this show once, on BBCi! That is not really notable... Computerjoe's talk 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is actually a great deal more noteworthy than many of the more popularised comedy shows on Wikipedia.--87.80.234.203 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced, verifiable stub on a programme broadcast by a notable channel. --Muchness 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not just because I wrote the article! It's a notable show for departing from the rolling news idea and the BBC's general impartiality and actually breaking away from the typical format and expectation, more like Have I Got News For You and has shown some boldness by the corporation. Also prominently featured on the BBC news website each Friday and available over the weekend on interactive digital TV. --GoAround 13:54, 9 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thea Dorn

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Copied from article mentioned:
    • ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What is your reasoning behind calling them self-authored, then? In this particular case, the article's creator has several hundred edits and has created a number of articles (quite aside from giving his name, which is not "Thea Dorn"). I stop short of calling the nominations bad faith, but if nom's intent is to improve articles, he's misusing the AfD process to do it. Chalk me up as a Keep until nom has some genuine evidence. RGTraynor 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The article's creator is actually the article's translator, but my search of the German site indicates that the article also had several editors there, so seems legitimate after all. Will be glad to improve the article myself at this point. Sorry if I shot the AfD gun too quickly. I think I was confusing (1) whether an article should exist in wikipedia and (2) whether any published German writer should belong on a list of German 'authors'. That is, my concern to distinguish between the Herman Melvilles and the Dan Browns of German lit led me astray. (This is not to say that I would not include Dan Brown, just that that might be an issue internal to the talk page of the relevant list, rather than an AfD. I see that now.) Universitytruth 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Amazon.de sales rank in the 80'000s, no translations, best Amazon.com sales rank: none. No call on this one. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has won the German Crime Prize, an established award notable enough for Amazon.de to have a special feature on it. Oldelpaso 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has a reasonable entry at imdb DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retract nom per evidence listed above. Universitytruth 14:04, 6 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Ebbertz

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Retract nom. On second thought, I see that he does have publications. I think the article could use some reworking of tone, etc., but I don't mind the article's existence. Sorry I didn't reflect on this before initiating the proceeding. I hereby retract my nomination and move for Speedy Keep. Universitytruth 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete First hit on amazon.de has a sales rank in the 160,000's. Barely notable in Germany from what it seems. Not translated into English, wtp? ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too late now, heh. An obscure German author of children's books? Nuke it. - Merzbow 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per original nom (may not be WP:VAIN) but smells of WP:NN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They're perfectly happy with it over at de.wiki. He won children's book of the month in January 1999 and has seven published works in the German National Library (I've added that link to the article). Dlyons493 Talk 17:55, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panda (band)

Does not seem to meet WP:BAND. Reads like a fan magazine article. Strong Delete. If anyone can show notability, then Keep and clean up. Would have speedied but article has been around a couple of months, and would have prod'ed, but am pretty sure the prod would be contested. TheRingess 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I praise your careful approach to the article by not speeding it right away, Ringess, but this band is completely non notable - Gsearch results for "Panda+Flannes" only give 1 hit, and that's the band's webpage. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. HumbleGod 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not quite notable enough. DarthVader 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "...their up and coming LP" = fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:04, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Majeski

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Seems to be a vanity page from the edit history. Only Google hits of any note are a small NYT blurb from 5 years ago about an obscure zoning dispute and some pretty minor play production mentions. Fails WP:NOR, WP:RS and seems to have become a magnet for trolling, personal attacks, and disruption (see this ANI entry). - Merzbow 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also bundling an article about this person's supposed theatre company, Grove Street Playhouse, for deletion. It's also been a magnet for the same sort of stuff and appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have unbundled the Grove Street Playhouse nomination. It can be discussed separately in its own AfD section. Lbbzman 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteCreator has admitted to being Marilyn Majeski, and contnues to edit it with socks. pschemp | talk 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, sock supported. --InShaneee 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting historical documentation added on Grove Street Playhouse page. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:51:04 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The fact that the creator and her sockpuppets vehemently protect this article from any edits other than her own, even when documentation for those changes exists, support the article as self promotion and vanitly.--NYTheaterHistorian 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and comments directly above. RFerreira 07:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all prejudice worthless article about a non-notable person, put this one out of its misery, quickly. Batman2005 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything relevant with Grove Street Playhouse. Tyrenius 06:09, 11 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Hohlbein

WP:NN and especially WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Another Big in Germany entry. Seems very notable in his home country, not sure how that translates. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If he is notable in Germany, he is notable for us. Punkmorten 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This says he has sold millions of books and reached Der Spiegel's bestseller list (though someone had better confirm that, my German is pretty rusty). Might be worth requesting a translation of the de: version though. Oldelpaso 09:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; sheesh, this guy has half a million hits on the German Google, over five hundred listings on the German-language Amazon.com site, and the German sales ranks for several of his books that I checked were between five and eight hundred, which is huge. I would be extremely interested in hearing nom's reasoning behind his assertions, because that's just the result of sixty seconds casual search. RGTraynor 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above Travelbird 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and do a translation as per Oldelpaso DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Retract nom, as he has pubs. Pulp fiction fantasy airport material, all of it, it seems. How do others (in English, French, Spanish, etc.) deal with lists of 'authors' vs. 'writers', BTW? I'm sure this writer should be on a list of German writers, but am unsure whether he should be on a list of German authors. Will add something to the list's talk page about this, and welcome your input. Universitytruth 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Precedent here ~ trialsanderrors 16:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think that WP:NN has been addressed sufficiently. The WP:VAIN issues (does anyone care what name he uses when he plays Eldar against friends???) can be taken care of with some pruning shears. Universitytruth 14:22, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProZ

advertisement and fails WP:CORP hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Travelbird 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone - even if the blatent advertising was removed, it would still fail WP:CORP DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CORP --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has alexa rating of 4,142[31]. I think it's the most used / most notable site which deals with freelance translators. The article needs some cleanup though. --Zoz (t) 13:16, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leisure (band)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sotones Records. Fails multiple Google tests [32] [33] [34]. User's only contributions have been related to this group, their "record label" also up for AfD, and evolutionary theory. All of these may need to be examined. HumbleGod 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the more I think about it, this may qualify for speedy delete per WP:VAIN and db-bio, etc. HumbleGod 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nope; "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for speedy deletion." You can have a regular Delete from me, though! RGTraynor 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. DarthVader 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• You guys all know a lot more about wikis than us; sorry for the confusion (same goes for the discussion on Sotones stuff as explained there.)--Comrade jo 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' as non-notable band Travelbird 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hope this doesn't set the 'Southampton avant-punk scene' back too far though. --Coil00 23:36, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickdisk Forums

Created by owner of current version, none-notible, advertisement.-- 9cds^(talk) 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Despite the claimed vicissitudes of the site, I have a very hard time swallowing that a forum with only 147 registered members is "one of the most popular Nickelodeon fan boards," unless a lot fewer people give a damn about Nickelodeon than the Nielsen ratings would suggest. RGTraynor 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor.--Andeh 09:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The board was once very popular with over 750 active members posting at times until problems had with the adminstrator slowed the board down. The old board is gone and you'll never be able to see the screenshots again. Keep the article as a stub. Spongefan 16:04, July 7 2006 (EST)
• Keep It's a popular website and it needs to be kept --Stimpy101 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Above user's first edit. That aside, Wikipedia is not a memorial, even of websites. Plainly it is not currently a popular site, and 750 active members wouldn't really pass muster as a popular fan site for a TV network either. No doubt some fan of the old board can host a webblog with those screenshots, but it isn't Wikipedia's purpose to do so. RGTraynor 04:18, 8 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental High

Article fails WP:VERIFY Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it., and doesn't pass WP:WEB. The website the article links to is also unavailable as it has "reached it's daily bandwidth limit". I would say speedy delete as nonsense, however am going to say Delete because the site is unavailable. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. nn. Can't judge by web comics website, but this site lists only 535 hits and four fans. Tychocat 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. KarenAnn 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. Aeon 06:23, 11 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 of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle School 180

Article's contents are not sourced, and doesn't pass WP:VERIFY. Only claim to notability is In 2005, M. S. 180 was ranked number 1 school in the district due to high grades on the standardized examinations. but doesn't cite a reliable source. Delete. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced. Also, this is a middle school. Colleges are notable, some high schools are notable, but unless they did something remarkable on a more-than-local scale, middle schools aren't notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unremarkable, not a high school - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Schoolcruft. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines flight 1740

I nominated this for PROD a few weeks ago, but the notice was removed, and per the agreement on the talk page, I agreed to not nominate it for AfD until the preliminary NTSB report was released. That has now happened, but the report, in the words of one of the article's defenders, "not very interesting". Basically, this is a non-event. Aircraft have minor technical failings leading to emergency landings all the time. No-one was injured or killed in this accident, and it does not look like much is going to come of this. I am not convinced this is notable enough; this year alone, there have been 748 aviation incidents that the NTSB has reported on (did a search on their website). Unless you are proposing articles for them all, we need to be selective about which ones we keep, and, in my opinion, this is not one of them. Batmanand | Talk 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For at least a little while because it is similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292. Thank you batmanand to invite me to this discussion. Jam01 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete good work on the nom. This isn't a notable event, as "airplane in minor prang" isn't sufficiently notable. At most, this sounds like part of a statistic for minor airplane incidents. MLA 10:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also WP is not a newspaper. Tychocat 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I am the quoted "defender of the article". I'd like to thank Batmanand for holding off on bringing this to AfD until the NTSB preliminary report is out. However, I'd like to clarify that my remarks about "not very interesting" was in regards to the NTSB report specifically, not the entire event. It is still just a preliminary report. I find the event to be interesting, well documented, and notable. I don't claim it is a hugely important event, but I do think it is notable enough to be included here. This incident is very similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292 which did survive AfD. I don't suggest that we should have an article on every incident that generates an NTSB report - some of those reports are even less serious than an emergency landing - such as someone getting injured in the air because they tripped going to the bathroom. However, emergency landings of commercial airliners are not common, and when they generate coverage in the reputable media, as this one has, then they are legitimate topics for articles. Johntex\^talk 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The JetBlue 292 article only survived AfD because it was nominated the day after the incident and a whole crowd of people failed to grasp that it would be forgotten within months. As it indeed was. Nine-odd months down the line, I am not so sure it would survive a second AfD now that people have had a better chance to put the event into perspective. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The event was worthy enough to make national news and it's not a common occurrence, so I say keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatwarrior (talk • contribs)

Note that this is the user's sixth registered contribution. Batmanand | Talk 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Recentism. If this had happened thirty years ago no one would have made an article about it today. BoojiBoy 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BoojiBoy. If someone still remembers this incident in a year and adds this again I may reconsider. Travelbird 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:NN aircraft incident DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BoojiBoy. Possibly transwiki to WikiNews if contributors agree to dual-license edits on the article under the Creative Commons license used on wikinews. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs •