Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 25

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel bayram

Advertisement for some hotel, most of it written in turkish, POV ('friendly staff...') Splette ^Talk 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamvert with notenglish. Ifnord 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, Splette. Anand^(talk) 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement & wrong language. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You could move it to the correct language, but they'd probably just delete it as well. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I would also encourage people reading this to contribute to a proposed set of guidelines for establishing the notability of hotels to facilitate future similar debates. (hope you'll forgive the shameless advertisement!) Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. NPOV. Black-Velvet 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, POV. Grandmasterka 06:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ionfone

Not notable. --Alex S 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified neologism. is this "technique" even practical ? Bwithh 01:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. —Centrx→talk • 01:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• DelET per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 01:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 01:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ^{25 June 2006 04:02} Ste4k wrote:unverifiable.
• Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism Nuttah68 08:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Not even a transwiki to Wiktionary candidate. ~Chris | e@ | wp:iar | wp:beans | m:dbad 09:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. --Kristjan Wager 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:NEO. Anand^(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kusma (討論) 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lie dection

Seems to be nonsense. --Jacknstock 00:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is no more than a paraphrase of a very small part of a J.K.Rowling writing.--Anthony.bradbury 00:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the info! I had no idea what the article was about. --Jacknstock 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Pottercruft from someone who can't spell lie detection. - Fan1967 00:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - This is real nonsense. - Hahnchen 00:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 00:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Article has been tagged. --Coredesat 01:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Pure gibberish DarkAudit 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete what the hell is this? Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect, as all meaningful content has already been merged into the suggested article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inherit the Earth

This page was nominated before for deletion and kept. However, at that point, the article was about a commerically released computer game . It's now about a furry fancomic of the computer game. Previous votes for keeping this article include, "It shouldn't be on List of web comics" and "Keep on the basis of the game, not the non-notable webcomic". Although I applaud its massive assailing of the Alexa ranks from 2 million of the previous nomination to 1 million of its current nomination, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. —Centrx→talk • 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect to Inherit the Earth: Quest for the Orb. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is where the original content of the article went. It is customary to redirect after you move an article. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and revert to the point where it was kept. ackoz 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Armedblowfish. --Kristjan Wager 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the webcomic content, and redirect to the computer game. -- Dragonfiend 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merge the computer game was quite popular at the time and I can imagine that the official webcomic of it is of interest to some people --Splette ^Talk 18:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the webcomic is based on the game, perhaps it should be merged and redirected? (We could start with a redirect, as I voted above, and merge appropriately.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)

• You are right, it would be probably enough to mention it in the computer game's page --Splette ^Talk 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with the game page. Bwithh 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the game. It's the "official sequel" of (what I assume) is a notable video game, hence it is notable for being linked to this. However, I think both the video game and its webcomic sequel can be in a single article. Xuanwu 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Yes, the game shouldn't have been listed as a webcomic. But there isn't any reason to merge the sequel into the original. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the game article. If I hear "Inherit the Earth", I think of the game, whatever the subtitle happens to be... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or, failing that, merge with the game's page. Disk space is cheap. Bryce 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nom is incorrect about the authorship of the comic, it is the official sequel to the game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per Bryce. Royalbroil 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the game. While considering this vote I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. It was interesting to note that the members of the project have been through a process of attempting to formulate rules on deciding which webcomics were notable and appear to have been unable to reach a consensus - though, under strong guidance from Abe Dashiell, there seems to be a positive movement toward shifting webcomic stubs from Wiki onto Comixpedia.org. Unfortunately, the general attitude then is to leave the AfD process to clear away any mess. I would have hoped that members of the project would have taken more responsibility for their own area of interest and made positive decisions themselves as to which articles are worth keeping and which are not. SilkTork 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFMH

non-notable high school club in Iceland, vanity, fails Google test. wikipediatrix 00:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, high school clubs are not notable, and this article does nothing to assert any. --Coredesat 01:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 05:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a brief mention in the school article if the club is larger than most. Nuttah68 08:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and maybe a mention in the school's article. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertions of notability in the article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, even though this reads like if we delete this we're destroying Iceland. I hope the CEO and the CIO never fly in the same plane. ~ trialsanderrors 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's the student association of a high school which encompasses virtually all the social activities of this school, has 800 members, a turnover of tens of thousands of dollars and a 40 year history It may be a little to in-depth but I think its notable enough.--Ormur 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons cited above. --Villiletingi 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the main high school article Menntaskólinn við Hamrahlíð. Otherwise, it seems like a vanity effort
• Merge with main article on school. I don't see any independent notability asserted. Eluchil404 10:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: NN Zos 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the the reasons above. Vegaswikian 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by me. Pepsidrinka 03:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Free (hip hop musician)

Didn't think this merited a speedy. No vote from me. Irongargoyle 01:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete along with his mixtapes. "Scott solidified his standing in the local rap scence with a series of free mixtapes, and promo cd's which he also distributed free..." In other words, he's never actually sold one. Fan1967 01:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I'd originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as well as nine other related article (including articles describing "mix tape" releases) under db-band (A7) criteria. Self-released musician; no allmusic.com entry (the Scott Free listed in AllMusic is this Scott Free), no titles for sale on Amazon (Amazon listings are for the other Scott Free as well). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this and all other related mix tape vanity. - Hahnchen 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD-A7 per Ohnoitsjamie. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD:A7. --Coredesat 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per above. --DarkAudit 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hookie Dookie Panic

A website isn't any more notable just because it hosts the most divine of artforms, the webcomic. This one, found here, generates 65 Google hits and has an Alexa ranking of roughly 600,000. There are no decent sources, no professional reviews or press mentions, and its paltry forums manage 199 members. - Hahnchen 01:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nuttah68 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hahnchen's argument of no decent sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn and fail WP:WEB. --WinHunter ^(talk) 20:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If the artform is so divine in your opinion, why are you trying to delete the article? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 A7. Conscious 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Úlfur Hansson

This article attempts to assert the notability of this eighteen-year-old, but I'm not convinced. His father is not really mentioned elsewhere on the Internet and neither is the Bitroid project. Add the fact that the picture (regardless of its decent quality) is a self-picture, I must conclude that this person is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and the article is pure vanity. joturner 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Speedy a7 with reasons per nom - Peripitus (Talk) 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Vanity page --DarkAudit 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat 03:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vanity, no notability asserted. Jammo (SM247) 05:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Xoloz 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States

Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. We have no article on the topic of Channel 20 TV stations in the United States because being assigned to channel 20 tells you nothing intrinsic about the nature of the station. if someone had written a meaningful, sourced, encyclopedic article on "channel 20 TV stations in the United States" this list could be a section within the article. But there is no such article, because this is not an encyclopedic topic. This should be a category, not an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason, I am also nominating:

• List of channel 19 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 18 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 17 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 16 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 15 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 14 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 12 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 11 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 10 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 9 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 8 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 7 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 5 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 4 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 3 TV stations in the United States
• List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States

I just noticed that most of these lists include cable channel assignments mixed in with broadcast channel assignments without any indication of which is which, which makes it quite an intriguing intellectual puzzle to devise any plausible use for the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the phrase most of, for those that aren't, can't you just edit them so that they are?? Georgia guy 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're asking, but... the articles on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 say they include broadcast stations only; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 say they include broadcast and cable; 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are simply lists without explanation other than the title; 19 and 20 simply repeat the title without explaining whether a "channel 20 television station" means broadcast or cable channel. I am not sure how anyone could "just" edit them without individually checking every station on the list. It could be argued that the lists which only include broadcast stations are slightly more useful than the others because have some use in determining whether there is a possibility of the stations interfering with each other, but a category would do just as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you could just remove the cable stations, couldn't you?? Georgia guy 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't even see any reason for a category of this - being channel 20 is, as you say, meaningless. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• For anyone voting in this discussion, please negotiate with CoolKatt number 99999 for a good decision on what to do with UHF channel lists. Georgia guy 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate. --Coredesat 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Less than a day old, has not been given sufficient time to develop. Could potentially become useful, eventually. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Plenty other of list of TV stations by other classifications, such as state, network affiliation, others. CoolKatt number 99999 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Wikipedia is not paper. CoolKatt number 99999 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • References would help. And maybe intros regarding how all being on the same channel number in different places connects the channels... but be careful not to cross into original research. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Eventually, you might also consider turning them into charts, including channel name, location, broadcast/cable, company, target audience, etc. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A good ref would be the FCC TV Query CoolKatt number 99999 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Is that what was used in the creation of the lists? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, see my comments below. Georgia guy 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This might be helpful for people without cable, but if you have cable these numbers rarely mean anything anyway. I like the idea, but unfortunately it's too confusing to salvage. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nomination. These stations on each list have no significant connection with each other. For two stations in different cities to be on the same channel would only be meaningful if viewers were to carry their television sets from one city to another without being willing to change the channel on their sets when they arrive. By contrast, stations in the same geographical area have the same potential viewership, and stations with the same network affiliation broadcast many of the same programs as each other. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It could also, of course, be useful to a Martian with a very sensitive television set and excellent powers of concentration in deciding whether he would prefer to view the thirty stations mixed together on channel 4 or the thirty stations mixed together on channel 5. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all Seriously, WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.I really truly fail to see the point in these lists. Viridae 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, here is the chronology:
  1. Someone created List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States a long time ago and it was never Afd'd.
  2. Someone added lists to the dis-ambiguation pages Channel 2 through Channel 6, and when I saw the lists, I moved them to list titles.
  3. Later, I was hoping channels 10 through 13 were going to be created similarly, and 10 11 and 13 were created, and finally I created 12, letting CoolKatt number 99999 know it. Later, CoolKatt number 99999 started UHF. Georgia guy 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(I also say that I have proposed on the village pump some info about Wikipedia lists that I want to know what a good general rule is.) Georgia guy 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to try improving them before creating anymore (see my suggestions above). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems unlikely to be useful, even when fleshed out. —tregoweth (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful at all, and this is coming from someone who is part of WP:TVS --CFIF (talk to me) 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke with fire - Just... arbitrary. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Most of them are new articles. I don't like the idea of nuking articles without giving them a chance to develop.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I was the one who created the lists on the Channel 2-5 and 7-9 dab articles. They seem more "in place" there in my opinion - I meant it for someone in, for instance, Atlanta, who wanted info on WSB-TV, and who would blindly type in "channel 2", to get a link to the article. It was only meant to be a dab list, which also explains why stations that used their cable channel in their branding were on the list (i.e. WZVN would be referred to in the community more as "channel 7" than "channel 26"). As a "list" article rather than a dab page it seems less useful. I have no opinion on the deletions of the articles as they are now (hell, I'd even lean towards delete if forced to choose), but would support a merge back into the "Channel x" articles. Kirjtc2 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, based on your comment, if you think it makes sense to have lists at simply Channel X titles, it makes sense to have List of channel X TV stations in the United States re-direct, doesn't it?? Georgia guy 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Might as well. Kirjtc2 03:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete including cable channels on some of these makes them spectacularly not useful. The original disambig wasn't a bad idea, but it sounds unlikely that someone would be searching for a TV station on Wikipedia without knowing that channel numbers are regional. I really can't see any use for this. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very arbitary criteria. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete utterly useless, numeral codes have got nothing to do with the station, insufficient nexus between items to form a useful list. Jammo (SM247) 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Another solution could be to merge the lists into one article called "List of television stations by channel number." CoolKatt number 99999 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that would be far too long, even if limited only to US free-to-air channels. Jammo (SM247) 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan and other arguments. GassyGuy 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is there some significance to being on channel number 20/19/18/17...? I really can't see any point to this. - Motor (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Pointless lists are not what Wikipedia is for. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links, which these articles are and will forever more be. Batmanand | Talk 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the lot, arbitrary listcruft. Deizio talk 12:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You could move these to CoolKatt number 99999's user namespace. Georgia guy 13:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the unencyclopediac garbage. Unless, of course, CoolKatt 99999 want's to put it in his/her userspace.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete all, listcruft. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all and categorize. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for this user. Please clarify the meaning of the word categorize You cannot categorize deleted articles. Georgia guy 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It means create categories for TV stations by channel rather than put them in a list, if that serves any purpose. Come to think of it, probably not. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Entirely useless list. Tevildo 18:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate info... and cablecruft? Anand^(talk) 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good heavens. I've seen a lot of lists nominated, but these ones take the prize. Tony Fox (speak) 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I helped add to one of them and would hate to see work lost. Besides, if we removed it, certain other links would have to be axed, like Channel 4 (disambiguation). That has some problems. You have to go through 4 (disambiguation) to Channel Four, then to the disambiguation there to the list. But yet, I also say Speedy delete because it is discrimination. We could not merge this with world lists, because the only lists that could be used are VHF and UHF.That is discrimination. -Tracker ^{([[User talk:TrackerTV|>talk)}]] 19:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense, but these pages meet neither speedy keep nor speedy deletion criteria. -- Kicking222 03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tony Fox. Vizjim 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator wishes to state that I think the lists are accurate, represent hard work, and were created in good faith. If the result of the debate is delete, the main contributor of each should be offered the option of having the articles userfied, in case they wish to rework the material into something different. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a random collection of useless trivia. User:Angr 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in mind there are other TV stations lists too. So if we delete these, then those would have to be deleted too. CoolKatt number 99999 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point. Lists of stations in states or markets, or of network affiliates, are more notable because the bond between those stations is stronger (competition and being "sister stations" respectively) than just being on a random channel. Kirjtc2 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So what? They are all still lists of TV stations. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference is that a list of stations by affiliation or market means a lot more than just listing them by channel number. Would you call a list of stations with female news anchors whose last name begins with S "still a list of TV stations"? We've got to draw the line somewhere. Kirjtc2 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Still, these lists are useful because channel numbers are an important aspect of the station. CoolKatt number 99999 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and Userfy(move all lists to CoolKatt number 99999's user space) as per Georgia guy's solution. Bwithh 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial at best, I'm sure people can identify the name of their local TV stations on their own. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize, if enough articles on the TV stations themselves exist to make categories worthwhile. --zenohockey 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. These lists seem to be completely pointless and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is much different than a list of stations in a state or owned by a certain company or something like that. Channel number is, I believe, mostly arbitrary and I see no reason why stations should be sorted that way (who would care?) Grandmasterka 06:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing here that can't be conveyed just as well (or better) with a category. That is, to the extant that there is anything here at all. Eluchil404 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How about we redirect the pages to categories? CoolKatt number 99999 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't do that. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:24, 1 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 Delete. Xoloz 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy

NN comic, 16 Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This comic is indeed not notable. Most Keenspace/Comicgenesis-hosted webcomics aren't notable. --Coredesat 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat.Voice-of-All 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have copied the article over to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat, also reliable sources and verifiability issues. -- Dragonfiend 16:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with her other webcomic article, Muertitos. The article says it's a side project, so the other article can mention it as such. Xuanwu 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolutely do not merge, unless you can somehow show that Muertitos is somehow notable. Which being a random comic genesis homebrew doesn't look it. - Hahnchen 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was assuming that since Muertitos is still on Wiki and hasn't been put up for an AfD that it's notable. If it isn't, then merging the two articles won't hurt since the merged article could then be evaluated (and I admit the Muertitos article does not provide any notability proof, possibly because the editors didn't know to put any down). Xuanwu 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hate to blast down all these web comics but really only the very biggest ones are notable. - Wickning1 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not assert how the comic meets WP:WEB.. Neither does a proposed merge point Muertitos. --Kunzite 01:46, 1 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perez Hilton and Perezhilton.com

Not convinced. Looks a lot like nn vanicruftspam to me, but willing to be swayed if there is real notability. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I original applied a PROD, and I am convinced of notability per non-trivial news sources[1], one of which is CBS news. Google Test[2] Article does need cleanup Yanksox ^(talk) 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. news coverage is no guarantee of notability. even CBS Bwithh 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:WEB it is. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB asks for non-trivial published works not simply non-trivial sources. Most news media - yes, even CBS or the BBC or CNN or The New York Times (although probably not the likes of Le Monde Diplomatique... though that is not a mainstream publication) carries a ton of trivial news stories every day. Most "human interest", "funny story of the day", "style and fashion guide", "hot gossip", "cool website of the week" news article subjects are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bwithh 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete news puff pieces aren't really evidence of notability. If for whatever reason this AfD fails, at least merge them, this guy isn't really important enough for one article and certainly not enough for two. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge. In addition to his blogging, he is a radio contributor on some radio markets on the West Coast of the USA. Such cross media exposure is good enough for me. Rockpocket 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article doesnt need to be on Wikipedia. I would say Strong Delete to the website, not sure about Perez Hilton. {Jasrocks}
• Delete both unless notability is established (blog ranking, sourced articles). ~ trialsanderrors 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable vanity. Ifnord 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Alexa ranking is 3,103. Extraordinary Machine 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite blogger's page if possible, but delete the site info. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom and Bwithh. User:Angr 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Alexa ranking and media coverage. Both articles need a serious rewrite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete started off an average Joe - and I reckon he still is one... Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Well, he's more notable then an obsolete street name... and wikipedia seems to have alot of those lying around. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, no RS. Crum375 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the references listed above. Notable gossip blogger. Asking for non-trivial published works on a recent gossip columnist is a bit much - notoriety through multiple trivial pieces in media that are themselves notable and widely distributed is as much as someone like that can hope for, and this one has gotten it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP is built on policies, that include having reliable sources to claims of notability. If you 'know' a person is notable, that's not enough - we need hard evidence in the form of reliable sources. Crum375 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Right, that's what all those references listed above say. Here are just 3 of those hundreds or thousands:

• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "After years of wishing it were so, Lavandeira, a.k.a. gossip blogger Perez Hilton, has become famous in his own right."
• Toronto Star
• NYU Department of Journalism

That's plenty. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I put them in for you. Thanks, Crum375 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete vanity article. not notable. does wikipedia want to add gossip mongers as a category of achievement or notability? Joan-of-arc 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Category is not an issue here, nor the specific occupation of a person. The only issue for WP is: is the person notable enough based on reliable sources. If you read the current version of the article you'll find some fairly reliable sources that seem to make a case for notability. If you feel otherwise, you need to address these sources and explain why in your opinion they are either unreliable or don't prove notability. Thanks, Crum375 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• further comment. both should be deleted in that puff pieces do not constitute notability. no record of hits on blog is established. web site should be a speedy delete on its own. i havent even mentioned yet the writing is below third grade level with grammar and spelling mistakes and slang usage. citations for the type of boastful and bizarre statements made in article are not given by line note. Joan-of-arc 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article, I agree with you that as written it is unencyclopedic and your other adjectives may apply. I think reliably sourced notability has been established, but the article may be deletable on poor writing style grounds unless re-written. Crum375 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per AnonEMouse and the citations provided. Yamaguchi先生 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political parties on the Left, Political parties on the right

Parties can be listed ideologically, not on the basis of Left or Right, which is ambiguous. Henceforth I suggest deletion of these two articles. Intangible 02:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, To the left or right of what? --DarkAudit 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very problematic POV and opinions. Nobody can even agree on the definitions. Fan1967 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You could label as conservative and liberal, but that opens another can of worms. It's too difficult to manage. Maybe if there was one solid list of political parties. I'm not sure. Yanksox ^(talk) 02:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can convince me these are capable of being even close to WP:NPOV. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatantly fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this classification is totally meaningless for a large number of countries and parties. Possibly all of them. Opabinia regalis 04:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Most of what I have seen is fairly accurate, but only in a general sense; it really is opinion only, regardless of whether many people agree with the classification. Jammo (SM247) 05:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The actual list seems fairly accurate, and fairly NPOV to me. Maybe in theory left and right are too ambiguous, but in practice it seems to work out fine. -- C mon 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very POV. Looking at the UK there are glaring errors. Nuttah68 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Left" and "right" mean totally different things in different countries (eg in the UK, they are an economic and social metric; whereas in Israel they are seen as in relation to a party's position on the Palestinians). Indeed, in some countries, the terms are actually utterly meaningless. Thus this page is just not ever going to be able to be correct; hence it is inevitably POV. Batmanand | Talk 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: looks POV to me. The debate is often phrased in terms of radical / conservative now as well, with radicals just as likely to be on the left or right. Stephen B Streater 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV in nature, and unprecise, as it depends upon the country. --Kristjan Wager 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible for these lists _not_ to be POV. Tevildo 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It would be impossible for this article to remain within POV rules. doktorb | words 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Either delete or find some way to merge with Political spectrum or appropriate categories. However, finding some sort of objective criteria or sources for verifying this list may be tricky. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (I have no opinion on whether this should be kept in list form) The study of ideology is done of a pretty scientific level, and most parliamentary parties fall on one side of the left-right (lib-con in the U.S.) spectrum with respect to each other. There are also strong commonalities between parties on the same side across countries. So the terms "left" and "right" aren't quite as POV as some people think. That doesn't mean this list is unproblematic, it just means that you can identify parties as "left" and "right" in an NPOV, scientific way. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Only if you can actually identify "left" and "right" positions on different issues. Protective tariffs - left or right? Deficit spending - L or R? Immigration limits - L or R? Agricultural and business subsidies - L or R? Foreign intervention - L or R? I have no idea, especially as the American parties keep swapping positions. No, the whole set of labels is inherently POV. Fan1967 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No one will agree on right and left and breaking the parties up this way eliminates a bunch of important ones. Ace of Sevens 00:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, endless POV and cultural bias issues here. Grandmasterka 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deizio talk 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh Riot

Unsourced and unlikely to be true, given the reference to the "summer of 69" (the only reference to this Riot I could find on Google was from 2005), as well as the references to Dave Johnston (presumably a typo for Dave Jonston, which was created by the same author, then speedily deleted) and The Warriors. I hadn't heard of the 2005 "Edinburgh Riot" either however, so maybe I'm just out of the loop... --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for patent nonsense. --Coredesat 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsensical hoax. I permermed my own search, and can vouch the same conclusions reached by Peruvianllama. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metallian

Non-notable website (Alexa rank of 2,262,063). —tregoweth (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete, this one and Encyclopaedia Metallum to. poor quality fanzines Fair Deal 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per nom. - Deathrocker 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa ranking says it all... tmopkisn ^tlka 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Spearhead 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. David Hain 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:The text below was left, in an inappropriate location, by an anonymous contributor.(possibly the website owner) The user did not actually vote an the AFD. I have tagged the text as a "comment" and moved it below to avoid conflict with the nomination above. As for the accusations directed toward the AfD voter list, no evidence has, so far, been presented. Fair Deal 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment Several of the users below have been deleting references to this site. It seems the users are deliberately seeking deletion. The forum has few members because 'No Registration Is Required'. The website's ranking is not manipulated by Alexa, which reflects only those visitors with Alexa toolbars. Please note several of the below users have spammed the article in the past.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 already speedied. Conscious 08:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Letter W

• Unencyclopedic info on the letter W; which theoretically could be replaced with encyclopedic info, but such info already belongs in W, which is what someone would most likely want to search for. Delete. Georgia guy 02:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, joke page. --DarkAudit 02:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsenseDeathawk 02:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete because it's stupid. Very, very stupid. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Coredesat 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No compelling reason for either redirect target, but there is clearly a consensus here that the current content doesn't belong here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind worm

This is a neologism for earworm --BennyD 02:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to earworm --NMChico24 02:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. No one's going to search for this. --Coredesat 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Nuttah68 09:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mindworm. —Lamentation :( 11:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to earworm, but with a note on earworm that "Mind worm redirects here. For the comic character, see Mindworm." Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Absent any reliable source that the word sees signficant use in this sense, as opposed to simply being made up in school one day as I strongly suspect, it shouldn't redirect to earworm. If I create an article at blu that states it's a machine that flies through the air, it gets either deleted or redirected to blue as a misspelling, but certainly not redirected to airplane. —Lamentation :( 06:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, The article can be expanded --Noobodier 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; there is already Mindworm and earworm and this adds nothing except the claim that "it seems to be some sort of synaptic short-circuit" which is ludicrously misleading since it suggests that this conjecture (obviously vastly oversimplified) constitutes established fact. ---CH 10:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mindworm or Delete. This is not a real word with a similar meaning to earworm. In fact, the only evidence I found of its use as a word outside of aliens in computer games is[3]: "Mind Worm is a new word that I just made up...A Mind Worm is a lie that is constructed in such a way that it is mentally addictive and highly contagious...", etc. This is not the same meaning as ear worm. See also Lamentation's comment above. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 1 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Jay

Very minor candidate for U.S. president in 2004. He was only on the ballot in Utah and came in 6th with 946 votes. Candidates for office and generally not considred per se notable and Jay doesn't meet any of the tests in WP:BIO. Most U.S. Presidential candidates are notable for their press coverage or other things they have done but Jay's is the least notable of the 2004 candidates who recieved votes. Wikipedia:Candidates and elections suggest merging into the election page but that is full of other data. Perhaps the page on his Personal Choice Party could be a merge target. Eluchil404 02:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/merge as per nom Bwithh 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Personal Choice Party. --Coredesat 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and then redirect as above. Batmanand | Talk 09:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Redirect wouldn't really be necessary, considering his non-notability. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Minor candidates who run for minor offices are not notable, but minor candidates who run for U.S. President I think do achieve a certain notability. Additionally, it appears Jay may have a certain notability in radio/boxing if the info in his (poorly formatted) bio is correct.[4] Шизомби 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Minor candidates who run for U.S. President do achieve a certain notability. [5] CJC47 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 A7. Conscious 08:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red40

Vanity page for a Non-Notable amateur band --BennyD 03:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, NN --DarkAudit 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a band that doesn't assert importance. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no importance asserted. They're all kids, so this fails WP:NFT as well. --Coredesat 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Vote was to DELETE. Anonymous votes have been excluded due to strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. ChrisO 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Mayall

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 - another vanity article from the Monday Club set. Nothing in the article about why Mayall is notable as a pediatrician. Other than that he's a failed political candidate. Homey 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

• Users should note that this is yet another deletion nomination by the User above who has an obvious agenda against those on the British Conservative Right-Wing. 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As a two-time Tory candidate, he's notable enough for a stub entry on a list page ... but not for his own article. CJCurrie 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. --Coredesat 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think his notability is above threshold. The article is not NPOV, however, that could be fixed. While there is some effort at secondary sourcing, I don't think the sources quoted are reliable. With effort at editing and sourcing, this could be acceptable IMO, but as it is, two strikes cause me to vote delete. snug 13:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why arn't the sources reliable? 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. More notable than an average defeated candidate due to his activities in campaigning outside of elections. David | Talk 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

• Keep: Many candidates have to fight seemingly unwinnable seats. But his writings on Scotland and Toryism are important. He was also Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, at the time the most important UK Tory pressure-group with over 50 members of both houses of parliament as members. He is also a leading children's doctor. An all-round minor notable. 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Mayall was well-known, a good example of a minor notable who needs a modest biography. He has a good entry in The Medical Register. These delete nominations, all by the same person, are disgraceful. 81.129.155.181 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, failing WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Sufficiently notable. Well-known ex-Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club; prominent paediatrician. 86.139.185.202 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Homey may not like "the Monday Club set", but in my opinion English neo-fascism is notable. Fred Bauder 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability; I've not found any press coverage of this individual at all. With regard to Fred's comment above, a subject is not made notable merely by virtue of holding certain political views; the subject actually has to do something notable. WP:BIO sets out clear criteria, none of which are met by this person. -- ChrisO 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So is that the ultimate criteria for a Wikipedia entry? "Press Coverage"? My God! He appears in numerous newspapers articles (one is mentioned in the article) in relation to his two parliamentary candidatures, the Territorial Army, and also in relation to the Conservative Monday Club. He also appears here: http://www.nuffieldhospitals.org.uk/az_showconathosp.asp?cid=7881&hid=40&sid=876&backto=cons

and here: http://www.specialistinfo.com/consget.php?con=mayapscc01

I suggest he more than meets Wikipedia's requirements unless you want him to climb Mt.Everest? 213.122.47.42 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete for the second time. Punkmorten 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GEO Weasel

Internet flash cartoon with no indication of significance.

• Delete, not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 03:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'll clean it up. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. GEOweasel was deleted back in March/April, so speedy possibilities. --DaveG12345 18:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per DaveG12345's sleuthwork. Ifnord 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of film sequels considered better than the original

• Delete. It is my opinion that this list demonstrates an opinion, and thus does not conform to a neutral point of view, which is quite literally THE central tenet of Wikipedia. The IMdB ratings are used as the metric, but using those figures as the baseline for the article is merely a method of conveying an opinion, such as one might encounter when creating a Wikipedia article relaying a list of reasons Democrats believe we should not be in Iraq. — Mike • 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly subjective by definition. —tregoweth (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the list of articles that are bad ideas, "compilations of stuff people posted on other websites about totally trivial topics" should rank pretty high up there. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Opening sentence makes it pretty clear it can't be NPOV, ever. Daniel Case 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research/POV. BryanG^(talk) 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable OR, would require constant supervision to remain accurate. Also the opinions are not necessarily uniform or reflective of a broader social consensus, given that registered IMDb users would probably be more critical and analytical of the technical and other aspects of films than the bloke on the Bondi tram. In other words - inherently POV. Jammo (SM247) 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jammo. GassyGuy 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article doesn't appear to be NPOV sice it using strict IMDB rating rather than opinion. See also List of film sequels by box-office improvement . - SimonLyall 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. IMDB ratings render it de facto neutral. I think it is borderline notable, hence "weak" Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unusually, I find myself advocating the keeping of an article others think should be deleted. Keep because the list is not inherently POV, and can, with work, be made to be an extrememly useful source of information (see Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever etc; hence it may be advicable to move this page to Film sequels that have been considered better than the original or something like that). IMDB may not be the ideal metric, but at least it is a fairly large sample size, and provides a place to start. Perhaps in future this article could cite critics such as Ebert, who have gie their views on sequels that are better. But, as long as the article says "this source says that this was better than that, this other source disagreed", it is not inherently POV. Yes, the article needs work. But no, it should not be deleted. Batmanand | Talk 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, OR possibly POV Computerjoe's talk 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR. Possibly WP:NPOV, as well. --Coredesat 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Opabina regalis and Jammo; imdb is not a WP:RS, suffering from miniscule sample size and systemic bias. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, IMDb are perfectly capable of analyzing their own ratings. As above, it's not an RS. Deizio talk 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly informative, good subject, worth expanding with other references. --JJay 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is neither POV or OR. Eixo 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has been added to http://www.antiwikipedia.com. The less you allow to be on the Wikipedia the more traffic we get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.29.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Hooray You mean a wiki whose official purpose is to be a totally indiscriminate collection of information?!?!? That's brilliant. I sincerely applaud its creation and the initiative of its founders. I heartily propose that official Wikipedia policy be changed so that every single deleted article or article section gets automatically transwikied to Antiwikipedia instead. Let's create some coding to streamline and automate that process, so it runs as fast as possible. Oh, do you want to accept our banned editors too, as political refugees?Bwithh 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention some of the "Every Sperm is Sacred" crowd. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep as long as it strictly uses only IMDb to decide what is better. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue with IMDB is that it is not a definitive source it's just a poll of people who vote on what they think. There are many different barometers of deciding what makes for a quality movie. It's too tough to rely on a source like that. Yanksox ^(talk) 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If guidlines are made for the article so that it isn't called better just because of a few votes, I think a poll is an accurate sorce for if it is better than the original. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too dificult, it is much easier if a published list can out that was, say published by AFI. This is a shifting list that is constantly altered by frankly anyone whom sees fit. I am a register member of IMDB, and I can tell you that people will bog down pages with as many votes as they can one way or another. It is not a reliable source, that does not have any expertise. Yanksox ^(talk) 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Wikibout-Talk to me! 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV in nature. --Kristjan Wager 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. If we solely use IMDB as a reference (a poor idea since anyone can pay to be included) then why not just put a redirect to their list? (I'm not serious, just pointing out flaw of using only single source.) Ifnord 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Arbitrary list that fails WP:NOR: ("introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"). --DaveG12345 18:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and WP:OR. BJK 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete it does use a poll as the source, but it's still hard to maintain an NPOV, because that doesn't represent a good enough sample. Also it's hard to monitor to make sure it does. --BennyD 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments, and also the possibility that IMDb user ratings are copyrighted (see [6]). Extraordinary Machine 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR/POV, infinitely expandable and generally pointless. Choalbaton 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gren グレン 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It's not so much point of view as it is popular opinion. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The difference being? Jammo (SM247) 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: IMO, this article is inherently POV and violates WP:NOR because the act of choosing to assess a pair of films for inclusion in the list is arbitrarily decided by the editor. It isn't an analysis process carried out by a verifiable third party that is then cited in WP. So however careful the editors are, it will always fail WP:NOR. The article's current POV crowbarring in of films that do not fit the alleged selection criteria is just the icing on the cake. If it existed as "List of films considered by someone reliable and verifiable to be better..." then it would be a different story. But it isn't. --DaveG12345 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Single (unreliable) source, original research (comparing the source's ratings), arbitrary choices, constant and unmaintainable fluctuation of data, etc. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and unencyclopedic listcruft, and imdb.com is not a reliable source. --Eivind^t@c 06:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE The very basis for this article is POV. Delete it and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konman72 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep This goes along with some other articles like films considered the best ever or worst ever, but the criteria are a lot wonkier here and the more obscure nature of the topic means there are fewer sources to pull from. Ace of Sevens 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Next we'll have List of film sequels considered as good as the original. Mr Snrub 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the unreliable source. Also the very notion that sequels are worse is not sourced, thus the very idea of the list doesn't really fit in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 KEEP. Although the vote was narrowly in favour of deletion I am, exceptionally, putting this aside in the light of the article being rewritten and the nomination withdrawn following the submission of most of the votes below. ChrisO 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John R. Pinniger

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 as non-notable. Another vanity article from the Monday Club set. AFD nomination withdrawn as per ChrisO below. Homey 04:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If he can't even win election to an internal Monday Club position, he isn't notable. CJCurrie 04:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The above two compatriots have been consistant attackers of the UK Conservative Right-wing for at least 7 months. I would argue their bias is so pronounced as to be unacceptable. 81.131.65.236 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have noted that too. 195.194.75.209 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In every election there must be a winner and a loser. Monday Club National Elections involved thousands of people. Losing the occasional election reflects little. At least he stood! 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear campaign by the nominator against articles on the British Tory Right. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 10:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete UK borough councillors/lobby group members are ten-a-penny and, I would say, unnotable unless they assert something to the contrary. --DaveG12345 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Bet you wouldn't say that if he were a Fabian or a socialist, Dave, eh? 81.129.155.181 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable in several fields as a UK Conservatve Party activist, councillor in one of London's more volatile boroughs. May be a minor notable, but probably far more notable than anyone voting here! 81.131.65.236 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • anon user. Homey 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

No different to you, then?81.129.155.181 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: agree with User:81.131. Contributions from numeric users should be just as valid as those from Homey, about whom, in reality, we know nothing. 195.194.75.209 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Above is an anon IP who has not registered. Homey 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And? Who are you? An anonymous user who no-one can identify. 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Pinniger was a live wire in the Conservative Party (UK) and in the Conservative Monday Club. It took guts for someone like him to stand and be elected to council in Lambeth. Should all Wikipedia biographies just be about people like Napoleon? Don't minor notables get a stub? 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unregistered anon user. Homey 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No more "anon" than you, I suggest. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as per above entries- but perhaps a merge with the Monday Club article? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable in his own way, which is what a bio should be about. It is short and to the point. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've found a series of Times articles about JRP, who appears to have sparked a major schism in the Monday Club in 1984 after he resigned from it and publicly accused it of harbouring "extremists and racists" (wonder who he was referring to?). The Monday Club retaliated by accusing him and a number of other members of trying to mount an internal coup. The news coverage, which is very likely to be in more than just the Times, clearly meets the WP:BIO standard that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I do have to wonder in passing why the article's author(s) hasn't mentioned JRP's resignation and accusations against the Monday Club... -- ChrisO 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - fair enough, can you integrate your findings into the article? Homey 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can with what I have. I've only got access to the Times database here, but I should be able to do a Lexis-Nexis search at the weekend and hopefully pull out some more stories. -- ChrisO 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambrelo

• Delete. High probability of a hoax. No Google hit, no Google Local hit (and Google Local's suggestion of Cabrillo isn't as described in the article), USPS doesn't know it, and no, unlike what the article says, the 2000 census has never heard of it, apparently. Also, cambrelo.com, the link in the article, doesn't respond and isn't owned. — Mike • 04:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, the page has been blanked. --DarkAudit 04:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, in a rare display of synchronicity, I think it was speedied while I was prepping the AfD, and I think I may have accidentally recreated the page with the nom. So I've tagged it with {{db-repost}}. — Mike • 04:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've re-created it so it can go through the process (after I seem to have speedy deleted it right as WCityMike was prepping the AfD, sorry!). Also, probably a hoax based on Google results and previous edit history of the page creator; delete. —tregoweth (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious hoax. No such place as Soleado County, either. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Town that doesn't exist, by a canyon that doesn't exist, in a county that doesn't exist. Trifecta. Fan1967 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rambot would probably have got it before if it actually existed. Batmanand | Talk 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 10:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an early close per WP:SNOW? — Mike • 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Clerical note The creator of this article has been blocked for one month from Wikipedia and thus cannot mount a defense here, should they have wanted to. Closing editor may wish to consult said user's talk page to see if they have posted anything there. — Mike • 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Vote was to DELETE. Anonymous votes have been excluded due to strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. ChrisO 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.V.R. Smith

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. Another non-notable vanity article from the Monday Club set. Went to some dinners and edited a club magazine. Homey 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

From a quick tour on Wiki I see that the nominator has been attacking the UK Right-Wing for months on end, relentlessly. Users should be aware of his agenda. 195.194.75.209 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, too right. How can it be a vanity article if AVR didn't write it? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's vanity for those associated with the Monday Club/CDA set making their members look more important then they are, thus making the whole set look more important than it is. Homey 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Think you've exposed an obvious agenda of your own here. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 10:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly an icky individual, but seems to have some reference value. Wikipedia is not just for nice people. Wikipedia should have documentation on UK apologists for apartheid. WIthin that context, some Monday Club people may be more notable than others. TruthbringerToronto 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: a pivotal figure on the UK ultra-conservative right-wing in the years up to 1992. Wiki has countless articles on Reds; why not bios of The Right? 195.194.75.209 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? I'd vote that his opinion is equal to/better than yours. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: how can anyone say that AVR Smith was not notable? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Just as "anon" as you. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: AVR Smith was a mover and a shaker and is a well-known personality in Tory circles. Just read both his article and the two articles on Western Goals (UK) and Western Goals Institute and decide for yourselves. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability; I've not found any press coverage of this individual at all. Attending dinners is not a notable activity! -- ChrisO 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. seems like delete arguments stem from political ideology. im not on the far right myself, but he seems to pass notability test. article rambles a lot and needs to be cleaned up. Joan-of-arc 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Above contributor has made less than 50 edits, most of them are on AFDs. Homey 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this vote should be discounted - the user's edit history doesn't suggest a connection to the Monday Club / GLF cabal. However, I'm entirely of the opinion that the anonymous votes above and in the related AFDs on John Pinniger and Mark Mayall should be discounted on the grounds of suspected sock/meatpuppetry. -- ChrisO 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Spasyk

Nonnotable (vp of a national fraternity) NawlinWiki 04:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also WP is not a free webhost, hope the resume gets posted elsewhere. Tychocat 08:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Coredesat 10:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article states that "He was named an Honorary Texas Citizen in 1964 by Gov. John Connally". I am not able to verify it; but if true, this would mean notability, I think. --Ioannes Pragensis 17:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response I don't think so -- this is one of these things like "the key to the city". A state legislator asks the governor for it, and the governor issues the certificate. NawlinWiki 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Also is a straight text dump from this site, so possible copyvio/WP:VAIN too. --DaveG12345 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calday Grange technical crew

Prod has been removed twice since this article's recent creation. I do not think the A/V crew at a grammar school is notable, nor could it ever be. Daniel Case 04:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A/V isn't quite the right comparison and doesn't have the same connotations in England but nevertheless...Francis Davey 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Choess 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone created an article about their high school AV club. About as non-notable as they come. Fan1967 04:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We may also want to take a look at Calday grange CCF which is, as near as I can figure out, what Americans would call the JROTC program at the same high school. Fan1967 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If somebody adds it, I am down for a delete as individual units of larger cadet or scout forces are insufficiently notable. Jammo (SM247) 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Jammo (SM247) 05:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ydam 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge after edit back into school's main page. If not merged, delete per nom Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles, high school clubs are not notable unless they actually did something notable. --Coredesat 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have nominated the junior cadet chapter in this AfD. - Fan1967 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I cannot imagine a West End or Broadway "A/V technical crew" would ever pass WP:NN, so this... --DaveG12345 19:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I realise this article may not appear significant, but the technical crew consists of only a very select group of people, while many students at Calday Grange (which I may add consists of around 1600 people) would like to be a part of it. It commands great interest in the school community, and this page gives the best practical means of supplying information about it which is wanted by many people. Besides, It's a reasonable article, as far as I can see it's encyclopaedic in the way it is written and isnt wikipedia supposed to be about supplying information, "notable" or otherwise? And why does it matter if YOU consider it notable, if it's supplying information that is useful to other people?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwozone (talk • contribs)

I'm not a "notability" freak and I tend to vote against deletion on those grounds more than most wikipedians, but this really is silly (see my comments below). If you want people to know about it -- make your own web page (which is easy) or start a Calday wiki or something. Google will do the rest for you. As you well know, a lot of people in Calday will have no interest in being a member of the team. Again, think what would happen if every group had a page? Wikipedia is not a useful billboard. Sorry. Francis Davey 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete About as non-notable as one can get. I am an Old Caldean and had great involvment with the technical crew when I was there and I really don't think this can be said to deserve an article in its own right. When I attended the school, it had a very large number of clubs and societies. Are we to see an article on each one? For every school? What is more, this article really only covers a very recent group of members. Francis Davey 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can say with absolute certainty that there is a large number of people with an interest in joining , having been approached personally many times. The article does not only cover a small number of members, it merely names the current team amongst the large amount of information on other aspects. "...Are we to see an article on each one? For every school?..." Allowing one article does not mean there will be a sudden influx of every school club in the world making a wiki. You may well see this as uninteresting or insignificant, but what bad effect will come of leaving it to be read by those who are interested? I really see no downside in leaving a small wiki alone - it's not harming anyone, and if you dont want to read it then you needn't search for it.

... Incidentally, mr davey, I should be interested to know what lighting equipment was in use in your time with the technical crew at calday - I should be willing to bet it was probably the same old ancient strand stuff we're using now! If you wouldnt mind, let me know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vwozone (talk • contribs) .

You are wrong. A large number of people are not interested in joining your team. A hundred people may be interested, but that is not a large number in Wikipedia terms. When ten thousand want to join, come and talk ot us again. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, we see this all the time from a lot of schools. We can't have an entry for every school's A/V club, or chess club, or dorm council. The fact is that this is not something likely to be of interest to anyone outside the school. Surely there's some better way of sharing the information with your schoolmates. Fan1967 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Completely non-notable (and i speak as an ex-caldean) Modulus86 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I too was on the 'technical team' at my school, and would vote to delete it also. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? The page provides information that is useful to some people, again, if you don't want to read it then don't, somepeople would say it's quite sad to be searching around on wikipedia to find entrys that are of no inportance to YOU, and pressure for their deletion this passionately. Would someone please tell me what harm it does? How do all of you people from america know wether it's notable or not, you live thousands of miles away! How does it concern you? How do you know wether it is notable or not? How do you know now many people want information? Maybe an injection of common sense is needed.{A comment which was DELETED by another user, unfairly - it may not have been phrased politely, but "You are wrong..." etc was not either, and as a discussion page, I was under the impression that deleting others' comments was not allowed.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwozone (talk • contribs)

And sorry to get fussy, but please stop calling it an "A/V Club" - different thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwozone (talk • contribs)

• Keep This is getting silly. I thought the idea of checking for "notability" was to prevent people creating badly written pages about their friends - not to delete encyclopaedic articles regarding something perfectly reasonable. If people have gone to the trouble of creating a page, then leave them alone! What harm is it doing by being there? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a small encyclopaedia of carefully chosen articles, selected on the grounds of how "notable" they are, surely.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwozone (talk • contribs)

• Comment May i ask also, what signnificance is it that you are an old caldean Modulus 86? and Francis Davey? I am also noticing that there are no replies to any of my questions so far, they have all been deleted by someone, confirming that you are passionate about having things of no importance to YOU deleted, and would go to any lenghts to achieve this, inluding violating the rules of this conversation page yourself. I take it that beacause no-one has any replies but would prefer to pretend that i never asked the questions, that you have no replies to give? and that therefore it might pay just to leave this article alone, is my reasoning correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.107.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not for every man and his dog. It has limited resources. Even if it had infinite resources, it is not a universal repository of information. Do you honestly think an encyclopaedia should have information on high school clubs or organisations at particular schools? SM247^{My Talk} 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment It would be useful if you signed your comments and indented any comments you have on what other people are saying. It quite difficult to work out the thread of what you are saying because you aren't following accepted conventions on a page like this (that may be why some of your comments have been deleted, though they should not have been - its trivial to re-instate them). So please can you impose some structure on what you say and don't repeat yourself? You seem to be directing various comments at me personally, but I'm not clear which ones or what you think I have said. Avoid saying "YOU" if its not clear to whom you refer -- not to me certainly I hope. Francis Davey 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I second that. If you want to make a point, then please do it properly. Some well written, clear arguments would go a long way but at the moment the people wanting to keep the article seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. Modulus86 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's "people". Looks to me like it's one person (the article's author) who doesn't remember to log in consistently. Fan1967 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, i think i'd have to agree with that. Modulus86 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joed

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Neologism, NFT. Daniel Case 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Charles 05:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just what, exactly, is this thing below? It was added by an anonymous user whose intentions seem highly questionable. Ok, it's gone now. ---Charles 05:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is used by many in a game called Eve-online. --Murmus 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The term is used by many people in the MMO Eve-online refering to an incident that happend to one of the players Joe of Omega Corp. The incident happend as described within the article. Due to this it can hardly be considered meaningless. Note Sure it may be considered a new word. But refering to Leeroy Jenkins at this point which is widely used within the MMO World of Warcraft. This incident is an equal if not a greater screwup. --Assur 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some has deleted the articled from an anonymous source. 05:23, 25 June 2006 141.153.232.194 as posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joed&action=history --Assur 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Textbook case of a neologism. There is no evidence that it exists outside of its narrow online world. No reliable sources exist, so for all we know this could be made up. --Hetar 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete use of a word by many a) does not mean it is not a neologism, merely that it may not be a protologism and b) does not justify the creation of a page that is essentially a dicdef. Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism from a game that hasn't spread beyond that community, and no way to know how prevalent it is there. Discussion page pretty much says it all. Fan1967 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism that isn't used at all widely, article has little to no chance of expanding into something encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. I'm sure everyone at Eve Online uses the word as stated, but that says it all. Tychocat 08:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn neologism. *sigh*. It depresses me that the message at the top of this AfD listing is required. Batmanand | Talk 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hate to tell you Batmanand. But no links are posted for this wiki anywhere. Only ones who have posted are Myself and Murmus who have both been working on editing this wiki. So I'm sorry to inform you that any attempt to slander the authors of this wiki are pointless. --Assur 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand what I mean. I was refering to the template at the top of this AfD - the big one that says that AfD is not a vote, that if you have been sent here as a friend then please do not vote-stuff etc. I was making no reference to you or any other editor. Batmanand | Talk 19:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, as neologism. Ifnord 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NEO, not a dictionary. --DaveG12345 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom... and pretty much every other delete vote. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the neologism. --Starionwolf 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and comments above. Yamaguchi先生 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 creator request, and more or less incomprehensible to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiMegaman Timeline

I don't even know where to begin here. The title of the page almost makes my case for me. It's full of fancruft and speculation and by the very nature of the game series itself, would be difficult to salvage even after a rename. Danny Lilithborne 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Danny,ever read this: [7] I just joined only about an hour or two ago,and like I usually do on sites I just join,I forget to read the rules.I also have a reason for the title crap,whenever I searched under the name of "Megaman Timeline" I got timeline for X3,and BN5,and Classic Megaman 8 yadda yadda.I had also just learned that how to make new topics because the searchword I looked up didn't have any article in Wiki.So I had to put WikiMegaman Timeline.I admit from only skimming I know a screwed up from what I know at least once.And it is not fancruft!Thats not even a word in the dictionary!Maaayybe speculation but not fancruft.I'm just stating the facts of the timeline by using the dates to organize it.And another thing captain noob biter,I freaking misunderstood the declaration of a discussion in your deletion policy and erased all of the Proposed to be deleted stuff.I did not intent to make this this worse,like I said I am a N00B.GET IT?

Mega-Soul.exe 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Mega-Soul.exe

• Comment Biting the newbies has got nothing to do with where a newbie creates a waste of space and needs to be shown the folly of its ways. Please familiarise yourself with the appropriate policies such as WP:NOT before posting things or creating pages. Jammo (SM247) 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Comprehensively incomprehensible. Nonsense. Jammo (SM247) 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh just shove off.The timeline facts are right,there's no other explanation for the X's being there than if they were variables!Thus meaning it's true! Mega-Soul.exe 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww forget it and delete the shit and get it over with Mega-Soul.exe 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Mega-Soul.exe

• Speedy Delete as requested by article author Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Bwithh 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deizio talk 13:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H- Team

Contested speedy deletion, listing on afd. Article concerns an unpublished indie film, no assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. No indication that the film has even been distributed, or seen by more than a handful of people, if that. Fan1967 05:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD:A7 --NMChico24 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete pure vanity. Jammo (SM247) 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Nuttah68 09:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat 10:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merged removed content to Magical objects in Harry Potter, deleted the rest. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry potter candy and List of foods in Harry Potter

• Delete. Insufficiently notable in and of itself. Suggest outright deletion or merge to Magical objects in Harry Potter. — Mike • 05:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Add List of foods in Harry Potter which appears to be a slightly longer rehash of the same, created after the AfD notice went up on Harry potter candy -- Samir धर्म 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify my vote now that the second has been added in, delete' on Harry potter candy, delete on List of foods in Harry Potter, and delete on Harry potter foods. — Mike • 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This borders on patent nonsense. ---Charles 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harry Potter or Magical objects in Harry Potter. Batmanand | Talk 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• *sigh* Delete per nom, not notable enough even to be mentioned in Magical objects in Harry Potter. --Coredesat 10:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom.--MichaelMaggs 12:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom Redirect as per DaveG12345's reasons. Nationalparks 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge is redundant since, believe it or not, it's all already in Magical objects in Harry Potter#Magical Candies, and has been there for months. --DaveG12345 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DaveG. --Joelmills 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• I changed it a little-creator of harry potter candy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm555000 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, and revert Magical objects in Harry Potter because the article creator removed it from there. Also delete List_of_foods_in_Harry_Potter and Harry potter foods by same author, which are just copies of this. --Jamoche 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep List of foods in Harry Potter, Delete Harry potter candy. -zappa.jake (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was cleaning up List of foods in Harry Potter, making it look nice, but I guess that's cool... -zappa.jake (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's an exact copy of mine- User:djm555000
    • Nothing is "yours." — Mike • 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: you know what I mean- User:djm555000
• Delete per above. I only hope we don't have to be subject to the "coming soon" section. —Centrx→talk • 06:32, 1 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 DELETE. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GamerPics

Notability in question, most ghits seem to have little to do with the site. NMChico24 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. The Ghits I looked at showed "gamer pictures", that is, photos of the gamers, not reference to the website in question. In fact, I was unable to show any relevant Google except for its own site. Now, I do not believe web credibility is for Google to solely decide, but I think it's indicative in this case. Tychocat 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 10:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I complemented Tychocat's research with an online search of my own, using different engines, and reached the same conclusion. I can now say with confidence that non-notability is evident. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. --DaveG12345 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Artw 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Ball and Greg ball (redir)

Delete obvious self-promotion by as-yet-unelected aspiring politician, User:Greg Ball started the article - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 06:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP is not a free webhost for the resume. Tychocat 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Candidates for such a lowly legislative body are not automaticlaly notable. Batmanand | Talk
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 10:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if it's not deleted, a clean-up is needed. --Kristjan Wager 16:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Controversy" section looks like blatant soapboxing WP:NOT A4. --DaveG12345 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT the place to fire back against political mud slinging. Get elected and get a minion to do the write up. Deizio talk 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article is allowed per Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections. The policy states 'articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.'. It should be cleaned up and put into a Neutral point of view, it is getting there. Also the New York State Assembly is not 'lowly'. MrPrada 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can you provide linkage to the pre-existing article about the election? I cannot find it. --DaveG12345 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is the article about the election: State Assembly election, New York, 99th district, 2006. Thanks! MrPrada 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Com I think you just disproved your point. When the article on the election gets up to at least a few pages of information - ideally NPOV, sourced information - and a decent stand-alone page (think something worthy of a Wikipedia:Did you know candidate) can be created about the individual, please call back. In any case, the "proposed style guide / guideline" (policy is a whole different ball game) you refer to above doesn't bypass the established notability guideline WP:BIO, and that these candidates are featured on any page is, imho, generous. Deizio talk 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the link, though it is naughty to delete other people's comments - please leave them where they are next time, and respond underneath. The information in the election article is plenty IMO - the guideline says "only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written". On the evidence of Greg Ball as it stands, there is not enough information of this kind. The printing of a full letter text in the latter doesn't fool me that the article is stubby and contains POV soapboxing. Leave it in the election article IMO. Feel feel to recreate the article after sweeping to victory. --DaveG12345 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Checks In

I don't know if The Swirsk's weekly columns on Raptors.com is deserving of its own wikipedia article. Just a brief mention of it on the Chuck Swirsky article page seems sufficient enough. Amchow78 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Qutezuce 07:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, so Chuck Checks In should check out of Wikipedia. --Coredesat 10:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As the guy who proposed the deletion, lemme put my vote in, too! Amchow78 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB --DaveG12345 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Or indeed Chuck Chuck In Out.--Richhoncho 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up front gaming

let it stay, it's doing no harm and if someone wrote it then why delete it?

vanity. 3000 posts since its inception almost two years ago and a google pagerank of 3. this board is only notable for its extreme lack of notability. 70.98.54.10

• Delete: Nothing more than your run of the mill online forum. No alexa rank available. By all indications it fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Batmanand | Talk 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, fails WP:WEB doktorb | words 10:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --DaveG12345 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Leave it there as it's doing no harm, if it gets little views then it isn't harming Wikipedia so just let it be! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.160.9 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article is thinly vieled spam that almost certainly benifits no wikipedian and almost definitly benifits that (or dare I say your) website.

Also, the article is very unencyclopedic. "The forum software is the best on the market", for instance. If this article were to stay, it would need to be cleaned up, and any wikipedian who would do so would be wasting their time. In fact, that's what this article is - a waste of time. Anyone who reads it is likely going to want their two minutes back after having read it. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to recover that lost time, but deleting the article is the next best thing. 70.98.54.10

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. AFD is not a substitute for {{cleanup}}. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic System of Islam (book)

Economic System of Islam (book) is an almost wholly empty stub. Of itself there is no assertion of notability. It was Prodded, and the prod was removed with no enhancement to the article along with prods on several similar articles by an anonymous editor (no reflection on the status of editor, who is entitled to anonymity). Since the article is no more than a placeholder I believe it should be up for peer review here in order to determine whether a stub which is just a placeholder is an article which should remain. My own view is Delete unless expanded. I am flagging several similar related articles for precisely the same reason:

• System of Government under the Holy Prophet
• Social System of Islam (book)
• Rights of Non Muslims in Islamic State (book)
• Khutabat: Fundamentals of Islam (book) I see sufficient work in this article to render it notable. This article is withdrawn from the nomination. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Islamic Way of Life (book) I see sufficient work in this article to render it notable. This article is withdrawn from the nomination. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Introduction of Islam (book)

Each of these articles is currently an almost entirely empty stub. Whetehr the subject of the article is notbale or not, these articles assert no notability. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no harm and this small amount of information is no less than the little summaries on most of the book stubs. The books are notable and deleting these serves no purpose but to create more work for those creating them later. It's also good to have a broader diversity in books even if they are sub-stubs. gren グレン 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If there were evidence of any constructive editing work being undertaken I would start to support your argument. But these stubs are old stubs. Since there has been no substantive editing to these articles since creation, it seems to me that no work is likely to be done. This discussion is surely nothing to do with diversity but to do with quality. The quality is simply not present. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You are completely right... but, I'm not seeing why that's grounds for deletion. They aren't bad articles... they are sub-stubs. We have many articles like this around Wikipedia on subjects that are notable and they serve as placeholders that do no harm. I did the base work for creating most of the sura articles for the Qur'an... and most of them are still stubs... but, many of them have provided an easy base for expansion by various editors. Creating an article usually takes more motivation than adding a sentence to an already existing article. I figure that someday (who knows or cares when) someone will see "Islamic Way of Life" and add some fact about how it sold X copies in Pakistan... or anything... and it will expand. If I thought it was doing any harm or was in any way biased I'd vote for deleting it... but, it's not. I guess we just differ in opinion. gren グレン 07:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That is the benefit of this process. We disgree. But we are neither of us important in the discussion except me to propose and you to oppose. You see sub-stubs as valid. I see them as invalid (no motivation to do more means no article). But others will review the articles and consesnus will be reached. And this is the reason I proposed these articles for deletion. I do not see wikipedia as a system of placeholders, but as an encyclopaedia. I thus feel that articles which do not meet notability for themselves shoudl not be present until that notability can be asserted within the article. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that other stubs exist (and need expansion) is no reason they should also not be deleted like these. This is not a discussion on whether the respective stubs are "good" or "bad", but whether they are worth being in an encyclopedia in their current empty form. We don't need placeholders, we need articles. And it's disheartening that none of the Keep proponents have volunteered to expand the allegedly important stubs. Tychocat 08:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not fair... I'm the only keep proponent and I just added a little something to Rights of Non Muslims in Islamic State (book) and am looking through Vali Nasr's book on Mawdudi to see if he references any of the works. :O gren グレン 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm really happy that you are, and I hope others who are also content experts here will follow your example in, editing the articles to seek to assert notability. For me this is the real purpose of AfD on an article that is nominated as non notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of expansion is not a reason to delete. The author, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, is said to be one of the most important Muslim theologians of the 20th Century; thus surely all his published works are notable. In the same way we would not delete a more minor, less known word by, say, Ayn Rand, we should not delete this article. Batmanand | Talk 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The books are referred to in the article on the theologian, thus deleting their empty articles will not be a loss, exactly. A far better thing to happen would be for those who are content experts to expand them, thus creating a true win. Fiddle Faddle 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep I see this afd as a good faith effort to improve wikipedia, but just as gren, i dont agree with its conclusion. if one reads Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, it will be evident why this books are not expanded at a optimum. Deleting the articles will not solve the issues addresed in the provided link. Give it time, give it 10 years time if necesary, what harm does it make? --Striver 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I thank you for the acknowledgement of good faith. It is good faith; I believe in the continuous and never ending improvement of wikipedia. Even so, the creation of stubs is not a substitute for the creation of articles. If one cannot create an article that is sufficient to be at the very least a valid stub then one should not create the article at all. A sub-stub simply fools the reader into believing that something is present when it is not. This devalues wikipedia as a whole. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It would be much better to add content to the author's article, which would give it context. Choalbaton 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment IMO, stubs for books are not bad things as long as they refer to notable books. I am not qualified to assess notability of these books, but if notability can be asserted, I personally don't believe there's grounds to delete a book stub. (Neutral) --DaveG12345 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. At the very least, it should be Merged with the author's page.--AeomMai 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. no substance here. book is already mentioned in author article. if we accept this article as a precedent that would add tens of thousands of hollow stubs for all the publications every notable author has written. speedy delete all the others reffed above too. Joan-of-arc 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above.--Omartoor 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have now withdrawn 2 of the articles fomr the nomination because I see sufficient assertion of notability. If I am online and see th eothers com eup to standard I will withdraw each of the individually. If not then I would hate this overall nomination to close without an inspection to see whether the others have been brought up to standard. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

i made a effort to track the book covers for the rest of the books, but could not find them. As i said, this is since its harder to find this things online in enligsh, maybe a Arab speaker could google them. Anyhow, i feel i have done my share, i have saved the articles that i created. Regarding the other books, i advocate the solution that maximizes the chances of information beeing add: To keep the articles. Their notability is not disputed, only their not having a big enough article. An they are not going to get any bigger unless given the oportunity. --Striver 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFSU

Non-notable webcomic. No reliable and indepedent sources. No sign of significant syndication. As such I am recommending delete. --Hetar 07:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wait, hold on a second. If you want to delete it because it's not that famous, though a bit harsh, I could understand, but, excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by a lack of independant sources? What sources do you need?"-Iota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iotametroid (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Based on google search seems pretty much unnoticed. Fan1967 07:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The top two entires ARE the site, and the next three mention the comic itself... gah, fine, go ahead and delete it, it's not my place to argue any more." -Iotametroid

• Comment. That's the point. I don't mean to insult your comic, but notable web comics have lots of people talking about them, and linking to them. Doesn't look like you've achieved that yet. Fan1967 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To Iotametroid: re your initial question, what you need is defined in the guideline WP:WEB. --DaveG12345 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 10:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webstuff. Deizio talk 13:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Comixpedia. Seems a reasonbly candidate for such a move. --Kristjan Wager 16:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have copied this article to Comixpedia at Comixpedia:TFSU. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB, --DaveG12345 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backyard wrestling link

This article is currently marked as copyvio, but I think should be deleted based on lack of encyclopedic content. The content is about online community, posted from its site. Conscious 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as self-promotion, advocacy, advertising. Author is also owner of said web pages. External links and references all go to his page. Question notability. No context, or verifiability of claims. Tychocat 08:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Vanispamcruftisement. Jammo (SM247) 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 10:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons cited in delete summary above. Antonrojo 14:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong delete for reasons above, especially about being unnotable and like an advertisement. Green caterpillar 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is NO need to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.150.28 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as per above, fails WP:WEB, article now sports a copyvio notice. Actual site this article refers to has renamed itself because (quoting its own homepage): "F**k The Backyard Wrestling Link! I am getting so tired of people telling me they will not join my site because of the bad reputation the Link had in 2002." This seems to acknowledge a low and pretty shabby notability all by itself. --DaveG12345 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be non-notable vanity, created by the author in order to expand his audience. I would also question the POV. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Moon Studios

This article is currently marked as copyvio (see previous revisions: [8] [9]), but I think should be deleted based on lack of encyclopedic content. It's just an advertisement. Conscious 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-A8, copyvio. --Coredesat 10:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's eligible for speedy, in addition, text authorship is claimed on the talk page. Conscious 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. --DaveG12345 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A8 unless someone cleans the article. --Starionwolf 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleted by Xoloz. Sango123 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris ingvaldson

Vanity page (by proxy, apparently). The article does assert notability, that he was a member of the Canadian National Field Hockey team, which however does not seem to pass WP:BIO from my perspective. Even if kept, it'll lose about 80% of its content due to WP:OR. No prod because I'm expecting some controversy... hateless 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While the article looks like a vanity article, and the picture is a copyvio, according to the Canadian field hockey web site, this person did play in five games at the top national level in Canadian field hockey. That does meet the WP:BIO criterion for athletes. --John Nagle 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, technically he plays at the highest level of a mostly-amateur sport but are we to assume this means every sport? I am against having an article for every major shinty, sepak takraw, table tennis, snowshoeing and paintball athlete in the world. Recury 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd throw the article out, but Wikipedia policy accepts as notable anybody who did some national-level thing in some sport somewhere. If we keep it, though, it needs a major rewrite; it has WP:OR, WP:COPY, WP:VAIN, and WP:V problems. Fans, if you're going to write fan articles, please write better ones. Thank you. --John Nagle 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? WP:BIO is a guideline. Recury 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Vanity page. --Ragib 05:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Seems to pass the current criteria, but that could mean that these criteria need reviewing.--Runcorn 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 08:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as probable vanity, nn (WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, and on any reasonable definition this guy is not notable). Batmanand | Talk 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this but passes WP:BIO if he played for the national field hockey team, he is notable. If somebody with a clue on how to do it can verify it, I will create a one-line stub about that. The information on his pugs we can afford to lose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete WP:BIO is a guideline, but WP:NOT is policy, and this vanity page clearly fails it. Zero assertion of any notability in an article that suggests musical taste and pug dogs have equal importance to any sporting prowess. There's probably even a case for speedy. --DaveG12345 21:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fordhall

Notability in question (Fordhall is considered by many to have been a forrunner in the organic movement and although the land does not fit exactly into the current organic standard it has been farmed without chemicals for over 50 years) NMChico24 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the point - it does not meet organic standards and the forerunner etc is an unsourced POV. BlueValour 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete In addition to failing WP:NN the article is unverified. It appears that inclusion of this article may be an effort to increase the profile of the farm which is under threat of takeover by developers. Kershner 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
• Keep

A look at http://www.fordhallfarm.com/ will confirm that there are 2900 people in the UK who have put money into this scheme and that over £575,000 has been raised. The farm is not particularly under threat from developers but simply coming to the end of it's lease. If successful the land will be owned by all of the people who have subscribed under a community land initiative, a scheme which probably merits an entry in it's own right. National newspapers are following the progress of this in The Daily Telegraph (Weekend section) on 17th June and The Guardian (Society section) on 21st June. I have no connection with the farm (apart from I intend to buy a £50 share before 1st July) - but I do think it's an important initative and warrantentry in Wikipedia on the basis of organic farming and community land ownership issues. As this is the first entry I have ever written, I would be grateful for any help in fitting in with Wikipedia protocol rather than simply rejecting my submission

Caroline marks 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Comment If you have assembled some evidence of notability and need some help with formatting the article to include references etc., contact me on my user page. I personally find this farm to be notable, but the article currently does not assert this with satisfactory reliable sources. If it was rewritten to include such citations, I think it would be in much better shape. --DaveG12345 22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A worthy cause, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service or open web directory. I looked over the website and I don't see how this is salvageable as a wikipedia article, unfortunately Bwithh 23:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bwithh --206.11.112.251 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite Not NN, but the article is not encyclopaedic as it stands.--Runcorn 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This article contains POV and unsourced, unsubstantiated claims. BlueValour 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Content disputes such as "POV and unsourced, unsubstantiated claims" are not a reason to delete. Is clearly notable as an example of a farm trying to go organic; it is effectively a "case study". Batmanand | Talk 08:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Expand to assert notability. No expansion will see my opinion alter to Delete. There are no incoming links of any calibre, and the article is unwikified. No expansion has happened, nor does ot seem likely. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. I agree, it's a good cause and it's caught some local attention by its fundraising pleas, but it's still nn. No sources given, POV questions, and unsubstantiated claims on their face - no sources or references for verification. Also, the author states she's going to buy a share - I'd also wonder about advocacy and advertising. Tychocat 09:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as non notable. The website offers nothing to show any notability. Nuttah68 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, unverified and unsourced. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but tag for cleanup. I believe this is a notable farm, but the article lacks WP:V. Eventual rename of article to Fordhall Farm might be appropriate too. --DaveG12345 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - there are thousands of fully organic farms around the world. None of the statements in the article are sourced so may or may not be true. What makes this notable out of all the many other /verififable/ organic farms? BlueValour 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what I have been able to find out, I believe it would be possible to produce a properly verifiable article about this farm, although there may be a slight issue with it being the subject of an ongoing news story in the UK. I do not intend to research this material myself though. I am just noting that the required material, IMO, seems to exist. Obviously, as the article stands, it fails WP:V. Hence it needs cleanup. --DaveG12345 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree it may be verifiable but, despite this AfD nothing has come forward. It is up to the author and subsequent editors to produce a stand-up case and they haven't. The UK is stuffed full of organic farms - the shelves in my supermarket groans under their produce. BlueValour 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If it's notable, even if the article itself contains nothing that verifies its notability, then it should not be deleted. Also, user "Caroline marks" above does make a statement of intent to update the article. I hear what you're saying (I feel the same way sometimes about high schools on WP), but I stand by my original comments. --DaveG12345 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (still Delete) Articles which cannot be verified and have serious doubts about their notability are exactly the type of content which *should* be deleted. If a legitimate encyclopedic article can be written on this topic, then someone should write it. This article is not encyclopedic and fails WP:NN and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a place to list every organic farm. If it was, I could easily add 10000+ American farms of larger size and greater contribution to the economy than this one. Everything has a story and telling those stories has a place in society, but not in an encyclopedia. Kershner 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and does not assert it either. The most notable assertion is "Fordhall is considered by many to have been a forrunner in the organic movement", which is third person "I heard about it on the bus" and unsourced. Its Google hits are mostly blog entries in a grass-roots campaign. It does, however, have this one article in The Telegraph[10], but it is a "human interest" story, like one of many non-notable such stories in many newspapers. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 1 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 delete. Sango123 17:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of A&W Restaraunts menu items

I cannot see how a menu belongs in an encyclopedia Nuttah68 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: definately no need to go down this road. Were not an advertising service for A&W, and there is no need for an individual article on A&W's menu. Any significant menu items can be easily mentioned in their article. --Hetar 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless collection of data. Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also advertisement, listcruft... good lord. Tychocat 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruftburger with extra cruft. Jammo (SM247) 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of info. --Coredesat 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Good Lord! Delete ~ trialsanderrors 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Green caterpillar 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, have you seen McDonald's menu items? Ifnord 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now and that has an Afd Nuttah68 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And that AfD is nine keep to one delete. I understand the argument, "But the McDonald's menu item article is a real article." But, IMHO, that's cause for improvement not deletion. Ifnord 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. The items listed don't even match what is listed on A&W's web site at [11]. --Metropolitan90 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the article title misspells "Restaurants". --Metropolitan90 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, the reason it doesn't match the website you linked, is because that's the Canadian menu and the site is American... NetStormer 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I laughed so hard I cried. Anand^(talk) 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like A&W, but come on! Though maybe could be incorporated into the article for the restaurant, if it isn't already. --BennyD 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, despite how delicious this is. Now I need a rootbeer. Agent 86 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have articles on nearly every food one might eat, and some many wouldn't. This is useful and not advertising any more than any reference to a business, hotel, restaurant, commercial service. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pointless list. --DaveG12345 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I think this is a little different from McDonald's menu items because 1) it's a list 2) it's a smaller chain 3) the international variation section seems to be what makes the McDonald's one notable. gren グレン 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a pretty bad sign when I can't even look at the title without chuckling to myself. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing that makes it... standout in my mind. JJJJust 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, zero-context listcruft. The McDonalds menu article is a) actually an article and b) chock full of context in the list sections. Aside from the obvious, no comparison. Deizio talk 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• just thought i'd put in my 2 cents on this. I'm a long time worker on the A&W article, and I had made a separate page for the menu a few weeks ago. Surprise, surprise, it was deleted a week later. then another person went and made another one as per my suggestion on the A&W Restaurants talk page, before he made it the rest of the way through the talk page. I'm saying Delete only because it's been tried before. and when it is deleted (which it most likely will be) I'll put the original text back on the page from before I made my first attempt at it. Sorry for being so long winded, but I felt that I needed to explain. NetStormer 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Less notable than McDonald's menu and doesn't contain substantial info. If there were actual articles on the menu items as is the case with McDonald's, a list would be appropriate, but this is just listcruft. Ace of Sevens 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Okay; it's clear that it's not going to be kept, but I want to make clear my reasons for moving the material to this article (I am *not* the original author of the actual content). As (to all intents and purposes) this list was reference material, it was badly positioned amongst the primary article content, where it disrupted the readability of the main article body. Whilst it could have been moved to the end, I felt that it was likely to grow and be added to. To avoid the parent article becoming overly long, I felt it made more sense to put it in its own list article. Some points...
  • If you doubt my reasons, see my first comment and later discussions about this.

I do not like articles becoming unreadably bloated with in-line lists and factoids. However, *if* such material belongs on Wikipedia, the best solution is to make it easily accessible to those who want it, without it getting in the way of those who don't. Hence the separate article.

FWIW, had I known that NetBurst had already attempted to create a separate article, I wouldn't have tried again. Fourohfour 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and neither is it a service for advertising A&W -- that's quite apart from the misspelt title. - Motor (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also advertisement, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not --Starionwolf 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just as good as any other fast food menu list. --JJay 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Levenson

An article about this person was previously speedy deleted as a non-notable biography (A7) and it was tagged A7 after being recreated several months later. However, the article makes assertions of notability and I think that an AfD discussion should determine whether they make the subject notable enough for an article. My opinion is to delete. If the article is deleted through this AfD, it can be speedy deleted if recreated, as long as it is substantially similar. If the article is created a couple of more times, I would suggest that it be protected against recreation. The author said that he saw his name here and decided to add content. I'm guessing he meant a red link, but the only link to the article is from List of male mixed martial artists and he added it himself. Perhaps there used to be another link or he forgot that he added it in January. If the article is deleted, then I suggest deleting the entry on the list to discourage recreation. No offense is meant to the author. -- Kjkolb 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. WP is also not a webhost, hope the resume gets posted elsewhere. Tychocat 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete still non notable Nuttah68 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, posible vanity. Batmanand | Talk
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Coredesat 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, smells of vanity (see "Trivia" section), and the complete lack any online mention or reference reveals the non-notability of this person. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• I just saw my name up there and wrote a bunch of stuff. I can edit it if you think it'd be better that way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.85.36 (talk • contribs)

I believe that my entry would be notable by the standards set by the MMA project on Wikipedia. "At face value, this would appear to include most professional mixed martial artists, but in practice should probably include those who have had at least one, and preferably several fights in an established professional fight promotion (e.g. not a startup promotion)." Since I have had several fights in Rage in the Cage, one of the longest running MMA shows in the United States, I would say that is noteworthy. Also I was one of the last to compete in the event before it became completely sanctioned. I would say any promotion that is about 10 years old is not a 'start up' and is pretty noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammer871 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts (note: I am not a member of this project) also refers to www.sherdog.com (see here) when assessing notability, which lists the subject of this article as having four bouts. The project's guidelines for notability in full are:

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive - To quote from the entry for sportspeople/athletes: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." At face value, this would appear to include most professional mixed martial artists, but in practice should probably include those who have had at least one, and preferably several fights in an established professional fight promotion (e.g. not a startup promotion).

Wikipedia:Google Test should also prove to be a practical test of notability.

Based on that, I personally find WP:GOOG fails for the subject of this article, and it's scraping onto the radar at best on the other criteria. In any case, I note that this article is not researched or presented using anything approaching the style guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts (their example of style is here), so it seems to me a little bit disingenuous to then appeal to that project's standards of notability. To me, this article does not read like the profile of a notable MMA fighter, it reads like a personal web bio/resume.--DaveG12345 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above comments.--DaveG12345 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (see comment below) --DaveG12345 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I hear what you are saying. One suggested option is to post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts explaining the situation and linking them back here? Members over there would presumably be more knowledgeable on the sport and better able to corroborate what you say. If you want me to post such a message there for you, let me know. --DaveG12345 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The list of MMA fighters in this encyclopedia will naturally include people who are notable in their own regard within other fields who have crossed over into MMA. This sort of thing is particularly popular and notable in Japan (where Pro Wrestlers, Sumo Wrestlers, traditional Martial Artists and comedians have all recently participated in MMA), and even in the USA there was a serious attempt to get a Joe Rogan vs Wesley Snipes fight organised within the UFC, America's highest-profile MMA event! Of course we should mention in a notable person's article if they have crossed over into MMA, even if their participation in MMA itself would not on its own make them notable. We must aim to achieve consistency as an encyclopedia here, not as if we were an MMA website. — Estarriol ^talk 07:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I went to put a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts but saw yours was already there - but have moved it to the bottom and tried to give it more prominence per custom. I'm gonna go Neutral on this one now TBH, I feel I can't go Keep because it doesn't look like a MMA bio, but it's also unfair to go Delete either, because the subject is borderline for that MMA project. I'll leave it to others to decide on that. --DaveG12345 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (as something like an expert witness, although I'm not that expert): From WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." Sherdog.com and FCFighter.com both establish that "John Levenson" (with an n) has fought in Rage in the Cage, which is the most notable promotion he's fought in. Rage in the Cage is an established MMA promotion and FCFighter lists events from it since 1998, but it is regional in character and is probably the MMA equivalent of Single A or AA minor league baseball. hateless 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As per a note I placed on the WP:MMA talk page: "I'm currently marshalling my thoughts on this one, but I'm erring on recommending delete on this one and expanding our notability standards section. When comparing RITC to my "regional" promotion, Cage Rage, I can't think of a fighter with 4 (or even 6) fights who I would write an article on who is not also, or has been, a champion at his weight class. I can think of several Cage Rage fighters who have more fights but no championship that I would consider notable. I also consider Cage Rage to have a higher (i.e. national/international level) profile than RITC."

Jon, whilst I agree that many notable fighters have fought in RITC, that does not in itself make every fighter who fights there notable; it makes the promotion notable. I think this is a debatable case that I suspect we'll use to help refine the WP:MMA notability standards, but I think it's probably going to be a delete. For now, however, please consider me Neutral on this one. — Estarriol ^talk 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, personally I think we should only have articles on fighters who have fought in the UFC or Pride, or have at least 20 fights otherwise. I disagree with deleting his name from the list, however. Simply de-redlink it, lists are supposed to be more comprehensive than categories, i.e. they are supposed to include people's names who may not necessarily qualify for a page themselves. VegaDark 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 wasNomination withdrawn Computerjoe's talk 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of James Bond allies

Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 09:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the companion pages to List of James Bond villains. Not cruft. Bond is a hugely successful franchise, and a list of this kind is encyclopadic. Or rather, the onus is on the nom to say why it is not. Batmanand | Talk 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep list yes; cruft no - this is a well-known set of storylines and characters with good articles for many of the characters listed therein. Jammo (SM247) 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 terminated with extreme prejudice. DS 03:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leeroy jackson (a.k.a. Grant Smith)

Probable hoax, subject does not turn up any relevant google hits. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverified hoax / vanity ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I've seen two of these 'secret agent men' from the same IP address over the last 3 hours of RC patrol. -- BaseballBaby 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete only wish I could speedy as anyone with a brain cell can see it's a hoax. Danny Lilithborne 09:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to add a {{prod}} tag, but the author kept reverting. It's not exactly a speedy, so now we can all share the joy of proper deletion process. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per BbB. Jammo (SM247) 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• ROFLMAO, er, I mean delete Red Herring indeed. Oh lord. Kill it quickly! Fiddle Faddle 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy delete. Fails WP:HOAX, but not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat 10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Changed vote and reasoning. This is patent nonsense. --Coredesat 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, absolute nonsense. --DarkAudit 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. per nom. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Both per nom. Licensed to kill. --DaveG12345 23:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - blatant spam/copyvio. - Mike Rosoft 10:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympiarch

Promo for a non notable student conference Nuttah68 09:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete not sure if the annual conference itself may be notable, but one year's theme is very likely not. Jammo (SM247) 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement for a non-notable conference. --Coredesat 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete adspam, text dump from this site. --DaveG12345 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD-A8, copyvio of [13]. --Coredesat 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A8. --Starionwolf 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HabboFM

See also Habbo rares (AfD discussion), Habbo Paper (AfD discussion), Habbo Radio (AfD discussion), Radio Habbo Net (AfD discussion), Habbohut (AfD discussion), and Habbos (AfD discussion).

non-notable website, fails WP:WEB, just looks like advertising/linkspam to me. prod was contested by article's sole contributor. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 09:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and there's nothing here of value that can be merged into Habbo Hotel. --Coredesat 10:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you are gonna remove HFM, Why not remove Habbo Hut too? Habbo Hut's a similar website and has nothing of value. Keep it. If you delete this, remove the Hut too!

• Comment: Habbo Hut has been proposed for deletion by me yesterday. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 07:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete on basis of lack of notability. Weak because of 2500 hits on Google search. Ifnord 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, obvious WP:CORP/WP:WEB fail, name of user maintaining the article is same as an employee of the site. --DaveG12345 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dillon Collier

Does not seems to be notable enough. The page was nominated for speedy as a nn-bio. I think it should go to AfD instead. I am personally vote Neutral for now abakharev 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable sportscaster, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 10:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. A few online mentions, but not enough to establish notability to warrant an article (must be noted that an online search reveals that most hits come from WP's entry for KGNS-TV, where he has been mentioned undisputedly since April 1 tho). Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lockitdown is vandalizing this AfD. Recommend a block. --Coredesat 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Based on internet research, Collier is considered a significant public figure in Laredo and much of Southwest Texas. I vote to keep the article for now and see if further contributions are made to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockitdown (talk • contribs)
  • User:Lockitdown put the above message (presumally accidentally) in the middle of my comment and was reverted. abakharev 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, gets a mention on WP's KGNS-TV article and, for someone a year into their first journalism job, that seems about right. --DaveG12345 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reason for a local weekend sportscaster to have an encyclopedia article. --NMChico24 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Transwiki to the cookbook. Herostratus 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Steak

blatent ad Nuttah68 09:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I do not know the reason of why this is even proposed to be deleted. I don't see a problem with it whatsoever. This article was also added to the AntiWikipedia in case that it is deleted. BrandNew21 10:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, marinade recipe fails Wikipedia is not a recipe book. --Coredesat 10:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if there is some contrived notion of viability to back this article up, it's so poorly written that I consider it beyond repair anyway. Black-Velvet 11:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete however tasty it may be. per Coredesat Fiddle Faddle 11:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete so people have to come to the Antiwikipedia to see it and drive up our traffic ranking.
• Delete so starving African children on their $100 laptops can't find out about something so tasty.
• Keep I wrote the article (sorry if it's badly written, as I'm new to this) because it is a staple of SF Bay area life (at least Silicon Valley from my experience) and I hear constant inquiries about it, what is it, how do they make it, why is it so black, etc. It is a topic of discussion at any BBQ or place where it's served; it also struck me as a bit of an odd and noteworthy thing with an interesting history that would fit in at Wikipedia - i.e. you hear about Fred Steak and go to Wikipedia to find out what it is (I in fact did that before deciding to write an entry). And the recipe is not directly for it, but an entry on how one might make this product elsewhere in the world, i.e. additive knowledge on a food item (which I admit does stray close to a recipe, but that's not the main point of the article). Feel free (obviously) to remove pricing (provided again for additive info on price escalation) or otherwise fix the article. And it's not a prank, as I thought it was interesting and worthy of an entry.Mushero 03:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. NN outside of SF, and the tone of discussion here makes it look more and more like a prank. --DarkAudit 16:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Transwiki to WikiCookbooks Seems okay to me as a bit of Northern California cuisine. AntiWikipedia seems to be quite idiotic and demented however. Bwithh 16:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn business. Write-up in local student paper is not evidence of notability. In fact, I would consider any local write-up of a culinary establishment insufficient, as these are almost like Yellow Pages entries. Crum375 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And I would not rule out a prank. Crum375 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki per Bwithh Ace of Sevens below. When it gets notable outside the Bay Area/blog circuit, no doubt it'll be welcomed back. --DaveG12345 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify, per Ace of Sevens, only the recipe is to be transwikied IMO, delete the advert. --DaveG12345 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm from the Bay Area, and this is NOT a "stable" (or staple) of Bay Area life. I suspect it's barely a staple of Stanford Shopping Center life. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki the recipe to wikibooks, delete the rest. Ace of Sevens 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's creepy and kind of interesting. Someone will find this useful. Delete anything that sounds like ad copy--and there's a recipe here?
• Transwiki to WikiCookbooks. Yamaguchi先生 08:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Transwiki the recipe to wikibooks, delete the rest per Ace of Sevens. Inner Earth 11:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crum375. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (or merge with "List of foods in Aisle 12") —Centrx→talk • 22:44, 1 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 delete. Sango123 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Bandana

Minor item in two games. Neither game article would benefit from the merge, this is a very unlikely place to put a disambig, and this article hardly stands on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable item, no point in merging. --Coredesat 10:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly unecyclopedic and non-notable. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - worthless sans any intrinsic value -- Nesher 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Take bandana from Solid Snake and bin it. --DaveG12345 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable on its own. Ace of Sevens 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosser (name), Street Names

Wikipedia is not a global street map Nuttah68 10:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary article, fails WP:NOT. --Coredesat 10:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wow, indiscriminate - but impressive. what's the source for this, anyway? - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unusually pointless list. --DaveG12345 00:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Listing the places with a Prosser Street, Prosser Avenue, etc., will be useful to some people, and it does not turn Wikipedia into a global street map.
• Delete, totally unsourced cruft and collection of nn items. Punkmorten 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Prosser (name) is crufty as well. Punkmorten 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario's pad

Contains very little useful content, no other pages link to it and would probably better be mentioned in the respective articles it concerns DarkPhoenix 10:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, almost no useful content. Mention in the respective articles, but there's nothing worth merging here, and a redirect probably won't work. --Coredesat 10:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not nearly notable enough to merit it's own article. fetofs ^Hello! 14:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lol. I could make an article about "Wickning1's pad" that's more interesting to read. :D - Wickning1 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 13 Illuminati Bloodlines

This article has no reliable sources, despite the original author saying that there will be improvements, and reads like original research. Kevin 10:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, blatantly fails WP:NOR and WP:V. --Coredesat 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why too afraid to look into dark corners of the world? Too bad, accept this article for what it is currently... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinyu (talk • contribs)

• Delete as above and because WP:NOT a soapbox for conspiracycruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blah blah blah --Blog Mav Rick 17:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Sources given (external links) are mostly the same site. Ifnord 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ultra Strong Keep Well perhaps if you people DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF TALKING ALL DAY, THIS ARTICLE WOULD NOT BE AN AfD - pure hypocricy on part of Wikipedians...what you think there is only one author, and that is it? Too bad, keep it. Btw - I started this article, and I do not want this effort of mine to down the drain. --Lord X 19:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
• Delete before the Owl Worshipping Lizards take over the Cabal....... Oh, and this article is conspirloon nonsense doktorb | words 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is what you think. Don't underestimate my sources. It is NOT NONSENSE, only nonsense to you because either your mind is not open enough to strange things, or are too lazy to expand it yourself - mind the rude truth, but...wait? Truth hurts, doesn't IT?--Lord X 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

hey! whats wrong with us owl-worshipping lizards ruling everything? :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because strange things require extraordinary evidence and there doesn’t seem to be any. (Also because it fails WP:V.) —xyzzy_n 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, why don't you people also do some research too...and expand this article hey? Is it because you hate me? You probably do, so you would never accept what I say. But what I say is not important is it? Well too bad, KEEP THIS ARTICLE...I AM WORKING ON IT ALREADY. --Lord X 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

IF we have an article on conspiracy theories, then it is also necassary to give further evidence of conspiracy theories...don't you agree? --Lord X 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Why don't you people help rather than sitting around wanting this to be rid of? Change the policy if you have to...cold hard reasoning doesn't work with me--Lord X 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

• Delete per every deletion vote above mine (with the possible exception of "blah blah blah") It's OR, it's completely unverifiable, it's kind of nonsensical, and, as Angus said, it's using WP as a soapbox for said unverifiably nonsensical OR. -- Kicking222 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you study enough conspiracies, you'd realize that since a minor population only believes in them, its either too difficult to PHYSICALLY prove it, or its just beyond the leap of evidence. That is where Wikipedia has failed - its failure to address common sense, whichi I hope it has an article on, if not, that would be sad. But conspiracies are hidden too well to be, "verified," to the point where everyone would accept it. It is not OR. How many times do I have to tell you people? Are you all that ignorant of the task that lies ahead of would-be edittors who wants this article? Use common sense. --Lord X 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

• Speedy Delete fails WP:NPOV, and is devolving into rants from OP. --DarkAudit 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per the above. Fails WP:OR. There are plenty of more appropriate venues for the author to express his theories to his heart's content. Tevildo 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I'd rather not give a reason, as the author seems to be jumping on jumping on everyone's back that does so. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Konstable 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Common sense tells me to Delete this article as unverifable conspiracy theory. Fan1967 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but only because my masters are telling me to. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the editors involved with this article would care to add references to verifiable and reputable third party sources - for example, something from a reliable publisher that was not written by Fritz Springmeier - then we'll all see the error of our ways (assuming our "programming" has not made us blind to the obvious). Currently, my programming tells me that this is an unverifiable conspiracy theory. Funnily enough, Springmeier's book is notoriously lacking in substantial notes and references too. --DaveG12345 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tin Foil Helmet Delete - how can Bush not be on there? Two presidents and a governor? BigDT 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• The usual theory is that they were recruited through Skull & Bones, which is actually a secret arm of the Illuminati, rather than being from the bloodlines. Fan1967 02:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure original research, which the author doesn't really deny... Just look at his userpage. Grandmasterka 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All of you Suck, you have no idea what is really going on. You all lack common sense to the simplest of things.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinyu (talk • contribs)

• Delete While I may suck, the author says that is unverifiable and that reasoning doesn't work with him. Since discussion and reason are the basis of wikipedia, this doesn't really fit. Ace of Sevens 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• I give up on this argument, just DO IT--Lord X 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

ps. I apologize Wikipedians for my arrogance and, "so uncivilized," manner...--Lord X 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

• Delete per nominator and the numerous pastel colored boxes gracing the article. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumptop

Vanity fopr a non notable software project Nuttah68 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Fiddle Faddle
• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Coredesat 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "...still in the development process..." It's all you need to hear really. --DaveG12345 01:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

keep it & expand IT IS NOT "non-notable" its a significaant experiment in future user interface design & it has generated a significant following & commentary online & in development circles; if u delete it now, chances are that a year or two from now you'll just have to add it in again; & wont some ppl look foolish then? don't lets be snobs about this, lets wait & see what happens with it rather than making a hasty decision to dismiss it. heres a nice little piece on cbc canda's website covering it & i dont think they would be considered a trivial source, nor would the have bothered with the article on their site, or the coverage they have given it in other media if they considered it to be trivial. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/bumptop.html wikipedia should be inclusive rather than exclusive when it comes to things like this, i think, i mean what are we trying to do, save a liitle hard drive space? :) i'm new to actually changing things @ wikipedia (& not planning on doing to much of it either!) so my apologies if ive broken any rule, or stepped on any toes in the way i've added my comment here... have since made some improvements in the article; hope it influences the decision on deletion in a positive manner... (lol)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotgoth

Not notable Nuttah68 10:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. --Blog Mav Rick 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this isn't notable. --Coredesat 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One Ghit. Not-so-hot goth net. --DaveG12345 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Astorino

Delete super-duper vanity article for a county legislator - a VERY minor type of politician way below normal inclusion metrics - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unredeemable self-puffery NawlinWiki 11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think he is sufficiently notable, but the article is not NPOV, and there is not effort at referencing reliable secondary sources; indeed, much of the material in the article does not appear to me to be verifiable. I think it is redeeamable with careful attention to NPOV and sourcing, but having two serious flaws causes me to vote delete, at this time. snug 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep I found 5 New York Times hits in ProQuest. Astorino has been accused of taking direction from Entergy, operators of the Indian Point nuke. I think he is notable enough, info is verifiable (albeit not verified), would be nice if some of the NYT info found its way in, but I don't have time. snug 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like his personal campaign material and/or press release. --DarkAudit 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is better now. He's not just a politician; he has some accomplishments as a broadcast executive. 70.30.153.135 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC) TruthbringerToronto 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per snug. Lemonsawdust 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Very minor politician with non-notable acccomplishments as media executive. Bwithh 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, fails WP:NPOV. Article fails to assert notability. --Coredesat 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per snugspout's original vote. I think the onus is on anyone who wants this info in Wikipedia to improve the article, and if it doesn't happen soon, it probably won't happen for months. Mangojuice^talk 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I put a little in that I abstracted from NY Times articles. I also further worked on NPOV. I think the article is above threshold, although if I took time to put NY Times hyperlinks in, it would be even better. But the standard is verifiable, not verified. snug 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His political career and broadcasting accomplishments are enough to make him notable. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balaji Aangan CHS

Not enough information given to indicate notability. In other words, I have no conceivable idea what this article is about. Black-Velvet 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what it's about is a "cooperative housing society" (a condominium in American I think) in Khargar, an area of Navi Mumbai (New Bombay), where it is said to be a prominent landmark. NFIT I couldn't figure out. Lacks context and being near the station is not not very notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This seems to NFIT. A neighbouring firm presumably. --DaveG12345 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no context, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't a notable company per WP:CORP. Here's what it looks like. May be a local landmark, but article asserts no such notability, and I cannot tell whether the name of the building matches the name of the company anyway. --DaveG12345 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Co-operative societies are mostly non-notable -- they are not even geographic areas. utcursch | talk 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twisting the Tale

Original research (author's guide to writing erotic short stories) NawlinWiki 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research and possibly that start of an attempt to showcase author's own stories. There are good guides to writing erotica. If this were NPOV it owoudl cite them. Fiddle Faddle 12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Byline and signature kind of make it OR by definition. Fan1967 14:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Dr Zak 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR fail, by non-notable author. --DaveG12345 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grovehill

As an ordinary housing estate, its not notable enough for and article File Éireann 11:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with the proviso that, should the reason for "notorious" status be notable, then it may be worth keeping if expanded. Fiddle Faddle 12:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Adeyfield and Leverstock Green also have articles with little content. Perhaps they should also be listed for AFD or prodded. Molerat 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless any verifiable notability can be found. --Coredesat 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems everything "notable" about this place is already in the article, i.e., the chip shop is highly rated. --DaveG12345 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yayasan Keluarga Besar Pusaka

Nothing more than a list of names. No other relevant info about the foundation (yayasan) Davidelit 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm pretty sure it's just a listing for an alumni society or similar (in Bahasa Indonesia, Keluarga Besar means Big Family, a generic term for such organisations. Tearlach 14:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only a name list, also not even in English. fetofs ^Hello! 14:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the society is made up of the members of one family and is basically of interest to themselves only. Rhion 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Fleur

nonnotable 19 yr old actor; nothing in IMDB NawlinWiki 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. --Blog Mav Rick 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio. A Google seach with his name and "actor" gets a whopping 3 hits. Ifnord 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD-A7. --Coredesat 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. --DaveG12345 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep -- 9cds^(talk) 10:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Mondo

An article on this topic was previously deleted at AfD. The content here cannot be speedied, as it is different, but the question of notability still needs to be asked. This nomination is only partially procedural (the matter of redirecting Sick Nick Mondo arose at DRV), so I'll go on the record as questioning the notability of "backyard wrestling" -- call this a weak delete. Xoloz 13:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Has this sport ever been on the TV or mentioned in the mainstream media? If so, that needs to be asserted (probably on the main Combat Zone Wrestling page rather than on an individual participant's article), which will probably bring the whole thing into the realms of notability. If not, it should go. Tevildo 14:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems to me this is verifiable, and the amazon reviews indicate he's notable enough. I would prefer way better secondary sourcing, however. snug 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per his role in a reasonably popular video games series (Backyard Wrestling) --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per notability, however is in need of an rewrite as well as the CZW page.--IU2002 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; while the video game series is called "Backyard Wrestling" because it takes place in peoples' backyards in the context of the game, Combat Zone Wrestling is actually a real wrestling promotion that claims the former home of ECW, Viking Hall, as their home. It's also notable as their style of ultraviolent wrestling is relatively unique.  RasputinAXP  c 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; the notability of backyard wrestling is indeed questionable, however Mondo wasn't a barkyarder and that's not what he is notable for. His role in Combat Zone Wrestling and his life being included in a biography on his career are the notable parts. The game itself is named Backyard 2 but that is still irrelevent to the article as even if Mondo was a yardie that's not the notable part. --- Lid 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and make the Sick Nick Mondo page a redirect. ONUnicorn 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after ignoring new users. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shefa Network

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}}

Not Notable, 89 google hits for "Shefa Network" with many of the links being for a different organization. [14] PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to use bad Google searches to deny that a subject has many webpages on Google. The following accurate Google search shows thousands of hits for the Shefa group connected with Conservative Judaism. Check it out yourself. (Obviously most of these may not be a valid hit, but that is of course true for all Google searches. Do not apply a criteria to this one article alone that is applied to no other article! ) Look, I have no problem with people saying "Delete because it isn't notable", but then I do insist that this policy be applied to all groups, and not to this group alone. [15] RK

Doing a modified search to remove the occurence of the word shefa not related to this organization leads to fare fewer results [16] just "SHERI SHEFA" was 95% of your results and she is a writer for the Canadian Jewish News. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true that "many" links are for a different organization: when I Google "Shefa Network" only 1 out of the top 31 is for any other group. (And before someone points it out, yes, this is among my first edits--we all have to start somewhere!--but hardly my first use of Wikipedia; I look forward to learning...)--BeccaB 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BeccaB, When you do your search only the 89 links show up mainly duplicates (See comment by Fan1967 below), which proves my point that it is not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Bad faith deletion of new article on Shefa

Huh? Why are people trying to delete an article on a very real group? The claim made on the Shefa Network page is false. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on. The Shefa Network already has:

• Several hundred members
• A journal
• An official website and e-mail listserv
• They have sponsored two major conferences
• More activities are planned for the immediate future (Shefa Israel Mission over the Winter break this coming year, and tentative plans for a high profile musical event)
• The development of two new websites designed to be part of a unified gateway into Conservative Judaism.

Sadly, the two people attempting to delete this entry refuse to even discuss the issue on the article discussion page. They have made no attempt to even research the issue. Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. Attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is against Wikipedia policy.

If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. RK 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional, nonencylopedic article written in the first person by someone obviously extremely involved in the group. This individual is obviously unaware of Wikipedia's editorial policy, and has been extremely confrontational, defensive, and combative. He or she is also obviously puffing the importance and notability of the group and its "academic journal." If it is in fact notable, it should be rewritten from scratch, probably by someone not as emotionally invested in the organization. NTK 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NTK is saying untruths. No one here has made any statements about the importance of Shefa;s journal. He has simply made a string of ad homenim and false attacks, none of which have anything to do with the actual article. He is trying to delete the article because he dislikes me, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

• Strong Strong Keep. The article does require more work in order to assert the notability of the organisation and would benefit from additional references. Conservative Judaism is a large movement worldwide. Any sub-group that has been in existence since 2004 in a global, Jewish movement is itself notable. Some that have existed for a shorter time are notable anyway. I'm concerned that the AfD nomination came so quickly after the article was ceated. Generally that implies bad faith to me. There is enough notability about this organisatiomn to warrant an article. This article is notable as an article, but I re-emphasise that it requires further work. However, it is only a couple of hours old. Don't we normally give peole time to create serious articles? Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have diluted my vote from "strong". The creator seems to be content with it the way it is. I view it as requiring expansion Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstated "strong". There is work being done on the article to prove it is notable. Ravnet discussions are not easily accessible, and regrettably one will have to take those for granted (I was gooing to say "As gospel, and only just restrained myself). The involvement of JTS personnel is in itself notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle came in after RK canvassed six users and a Wikiproject page complaining of persecution. A rapid nomination for deletion is hardly bad faith when the article is of such low quality, obvious bias and exaggerations, and given the author's past history. It did not take me more than a few minutes to find that this "group" is nonexistent on the web and that its "journal" is not present in major university libraries. 20K website hits goes more to show obscurity than to show notability. NTK 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's kind of you to wave some sort of accusation at me. However the fact that I came here after I had my attention drawn to the article has no bearing on my views. I see nothing wrong with RK's drawing my attention to the article. I had no need to take any action - I could have ignored his note entirely. I am sure he felt I might be interested. I was. And I have placed my thoughts here. I have also placed thoughts in the article's talk page. I looked at the author's past history. A 12 month thing in April 2005 expired, surely? So raking that up now seems to me to be rhetoric. Please stick to the article, not the personalities. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I accused you of nothing, I only pointed out the fact that you were canvassed—you on the other hand accused me of bad faith. And yes, it is considered problematic for users to spam talk pages in order to "save" their articles from deletion. I personally avoid voting on nominations I have found out through canvassing, especially when it is the author or the nominator who is canvassing. As to the parole issue, you will note that 12-month period is reset every time it is violated, and in any event personal attacks are never permissible. ArbCom rulings are hardly irrelevant, especially given that this user has previously been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for an entire year. To ignore that would be to make ArbCom toothless, and ArbCom is the one tool, if sometimes ineffectual, to protect WP from persistently abusive editors. NTK 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, whatever route I came here by, my opinion is my opinion. The matter in hand is the article. Please stick to discussing that. It is not rhetoric that keeps or deletes articles. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, however the whole purpose of AfD is to determine the consensus of Wikipedia editors. When an editor attempts to subvert this process by canvassing "votes" from people he believes to be sympathetic, these opinions must be taken in that context. I was not attacking you, I was providing that context. NTK 16:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with you. "providing context" means stating that "Several people have been cavassed for their opinions. It does not means stating "this perosn came here becuase he was canvassed" As you will also see the cancassing has drawn at least one "delete" opinion. These things tend to work out in the end and the correct consensus is reached. It doesn't matter whetehr we agree with the consensus. What matters is that the article is viewed on its merits and only on those. This discussion was moved to the talk page. It wouls be far more useful to keep it there. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• KeepDelete. Organization too new (4 months?), Links/Refs are still too weak (though I myself added one) and name is too confusing. Notable enough per links, reasonably NPOV. The main problem is the name - Google finds at least 2 other 'Shefa Networks', one for Moslem hospitals, one for Jewish hospitals, and other similar apparently unrelated organizations. I would definitely encourage a name change, DAB can only do so much, and only for WP proper. Crum375 15:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentOn name: should not be a problem, since those other organizations are not called the "Shefa Network" (1st=Shefa Healthcare Fund 2nd=Shefa Fund--Jewish social justice, not hospitals, and being phased out of independent existence to become part of Jewish Funds for Justice--BeccaB 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I carefully searched for the term 'network' also, and both other organizations use it. The Moslem UAE based Hospital fund one specifically uses the term "Shefa Network" in the article I cited above, and the Jewish charity fund uses "Shefa's Jewish Shareholder Engagement Network". I think part of notability is distinguishability, which is rather weak here. Crum375 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If distinguishability is the issue, surely a disambiguation page will take care of that. I don't think we've had serious distinguishability issue before that have not been simple to resolve inthis manner. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean distinguishability within WP - then DAB will take care of it. My point is that in this case of a newly formed organization of marginal notability, confusion with a name that is used by others with somewhat similar missions (religion related charity organizations), and some from fairly different religions like Islam and Judaism, does not help the case for establishing notability of this specific entry. Crum375 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Nesher 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Per what norma? I can't even follow your train of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs)

• Delete as per nom. This organization is simply not notable enough yet - it gets 0 (zero) hits for "Shefa Network" or "Shefa" in a multi-decade Factiva database search of US and world local, national and international newspapers, magazines, press releases and presswires. Conservative Judaism is of course a major religious movement, but it is not logical to say that every subgroup or local activist chapter within it is automatically of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

False. What you write above 'is not a factor in deciding whether or not Wikipedia articles should exist or not, even for religious groups. Are you just making this up? Also, you know full well that many other articles on religious groups and even individuals exist here on Wikipedia, yet you apply this non-existent standard to this one group only. That is voting for deletion in bad faith. RK

Um... wild accusations will get you nowhere. No, I am not making this up nor am I doing it in bad faith. I'm sure your organization knows people at universities. All or most US universities will have Factiva or something similar so your contacts can confirm my result. In fact, someone below ran a LexisNexis search and got a similar result. Notability is part of the standard Wikipedia afd nomination discussion. Wikipedia is a not a web directory or a free noticeboard for any organization. See my comment below too that a higher bar of entry should apply for societies of the more prominent faiths in developed countries, especially the US. Bwithh 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per NTK. Beyond the notability issue, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting an organziation or a point of view. Thanks to RK for bringing this to my attention by spamming people's talk pages, by the way. :) · rodii · 16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Very limited exposure (I get 27 unique Ghits) says that this organization has not achieved notability yet. Wikipedia is not to promote little-known organizations, no matter how noble their purpose. Fan1967 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, you used the wrong Google search! Secondly, in the real world most inter-organizational work is done "in the real world", i.e. not on the internet. The proceedings of the two Shefa conferences are simply not on the internet. We may not use Google searches as a reason to delete articles; that simply means we are too lazy to actually do any real research! In any case, why refuse the offer for an interview? RK

• Delete per nom.TheRingess 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Searched a few lexus nexus DBs and worldcat. Nothing. If I also assume what Bwithh said is true, there's little in the way of group-type notability for this organization/movement. Note that there is a health care group that uses the name shefa, as well as a Shefa Institute for Adv. Studies in Judaism, but it was publishing a journal around 1980, not 2004. Kevin_b_er 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of notability alone. This is not a disparagement of the group nor its activities, simply that it is not noteworthy enough for an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least pending further evidence. We should be careful to maintain consistent notability criteria across ideological lines to avoid potential for ideological bias. Wikipedia has numerous entries for individual synagogues and small institutions which arguably have modest external notabibility (Lithuanian School of Kabbalah The organization claims to have the support of major Conservative figures. The article could use some work -- I can't quite tell whether its purpose is to move CJ in a particular ideological direction, improve its 'marketing', or improve ruach. If the article is deleted, perhaps its content could be moved into a section on Conservative responses to recent concerns, e.g. internal disputes and demographic contraction. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the movement this organization belonged to was more obscure, I'd agree with your comment. However, it belongs to a major, internationally prominent religious movement and is based in one of the most densely populated areas of a country which dominates global media and has a strong local press tradition which is better covered by internet/library/database sources than any other country. And it still scores zero on a news and magazine database run. Bwithh 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does this "grass-roots movement" do anything? Having a website and even a few conferences does not make it notable. Trying to influence the Conservative movement's thought process is only notable if it has already had influence - not if it hopes to (someday). I do not see it as bad faith to nominate the article soon after its creation, as the article itself does not assert notability. Jon513 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This organization has already done more than many other groups that Wikipedia already has articles on. Why are you insisting on a standard that no other article is being held up to? And I note that you refused my offer to have an interview with the members. Why do you refuse? Just apply the same standard to all groups, ok? RK

• Keep - I have no involvement with the group, and this is the first I've heard of it. But the named members count more than a tiny cabal; they play an active and prominent role within Conservative Judaism, and they should get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith accusation, but this does seem like a knee-jerk nomination. --Leifern 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per notability guidelines. --Coredesat 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. User:Angr 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Angr, you cannot make things up, and then state them as if they are facts. Did you actually ask anyone on the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish an d Standards, or someone from the Rabbinical Assembly? If not, then aren't you simply making things up? You can't delete articles based on one's made up beliefs. Are you saying that you still refuse to take up the offer of an interview? RK

• Delete it may have potential, but at current it appears way NN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real organization of significance. I attended the conference in NYC and it had serious content and attended by many rabbis and committed lay people. Rabjeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabjeff (talk • contribs)

This is this user's first edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a real organization of significance. It includes many young and future leaders of the Conservative movement including rabbis, cantors, lay people, and educators. Many of the people in this organization spend their entire career promoting and teaching about Conservative Judaism. Yes, it is a young organization, but a growing one which is having an impact on the movement. The conference in NYC had outstanding speakers including 2 members of the JTS faculty. Davidr 07:21 26 June 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.136.27 (talk • contribs)

This is this user's first edit. Crum375 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Shefa, founded by a working Rabbi, generates 10+ mass emails a day to its subscribers...FROM its subscribers. It truly is a grass-roots organization, recongnized by both the outgoing and incoming chancellors from the JTS as well as the leadership of the Rabbinical Assembly. This is not a tiny regional group. Many read the digests of the conversations online and as such don't show up in some statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrotSquawk (talk • contribs)

This is the user's first edit. --Coredesat talk 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible KEEP per NTK, PinchasC and ParrotSquawk. More in-depth explanations available upon non-trollish request. Judge of who is/n't a troll, Tomer^talk 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh... how passive aggressive. sheesh. Bwithh 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep I am a member of this organization which is one of the most refreshing organizations in the Jewish world. 131.229.207.147 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)ravbruce@gmail.com

• 'Refreshing' is not a WP inclusion criterion. Reliably sourced proof of notability is. If you really want this entry included, please supply such proof, not pleadings or irrelevant comments. Crum375 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Delete. The group is pretty marginal; there don't seem to be many reliable third-party sources on it. It might one day become notable, but right now it appears to mostly be a website, blog, and discussion board. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete, I still can't see any evidence of real notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Question. The Shefa Network was the subject of an article in The New York Jewish Week on 3/31/06. Do Factiva and/or Lexis-Nexis searches capture ethnic/religious press? Is mention in the secular press the standard for notability? jshawnl 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because although Conservative Judaism is a big movement, this group is not and therefore wikipedia can not have articles on every single group of people that decide to form a group. It should be started as part of the Conservative Judaism article and if it becomes important which only time will tell if they will, then they should have their own article. DY1963 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There are certainly enough people who have heard of Shefa Network, or might stumble across it, or a reference to it in the print media or on another web site, that it would be a public benefit to information on the organization on Wikipedia. I suspect most of those arguing to delete the entry are coming from a place of opposition to the organizations religious views. Reb Barry 75.13.41.137 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This is this user's only edit. Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment to 'Reb Barry':

You have several mistakes in your statement.

1. WP inclusion criteria are strictly reliably sourced notability.

Your claim is disingenuous. We have offered to give you the most reliable sources possible; actual interviews with the organizers. The refusal of you and other editors to even look at such sources proves that you are not following Wikipedia protocol. RK

I will assume that you are new to WP and are not aware that we are supposed to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, because labeling my statement above, where I am simply stating WP's policy, as 'disingenuous' is illogical. As I have stated elsewhere on this page, if you have a reliable source that proves notability of this organization, please let us have it here. If you suspect that I have some kind of hidden agenda, please check the article's history and see who supplied this link. All I want, as do all true wikipedian editors, is to determine if there is reliable evidence of notability for this organization. Please supply your proof right below my signature if you have a good reference or link to it. Thanks, Crum375 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The possible use of entries to help someone looking for information is incidental, not a primary criterion for inclusion.
2. Your allegation that most 'delete' proponents are opponents to the organization's religious views is casting suspicion on other editors's motivation which is contrary to assume good faith and can be viewed as un-civil behavior.

Thanks, Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have been told to my face by a couple of people on this page that they are trying to delete this article because they do not like me, as a person. That is uncivil behavior, but I see that you have no problem with that? For shame. RK

My teachers and parents told me long ago that two wrongs don't make a right. Please see my comments below. Crum375 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it difficult to argue for either keeping or deleting, using the "high-school" test for notability: Vanity edits are not notable, but individual high schools are notable to some populations: their students and teachers (and perhaps people in the vicinity). I simply don't know enough about Shefa Network online to know whether this article was a vanity article promoting someone's small operation or an article giving information about a phenomenon people would be interested in as third parties. If Shefa Network wants itself known on Wikipedia, try to do some groundwork on the Internet and publicizing the Shefa Network first. (I had a few qualms about the notability of Judeo-Paganism after starting that article, but I had seen more than one website about it (although many of the sites that I've found recently were copies sporked off of the Wikipedia article; "Jewish Pagan" seems to get more unique results than other items, but such item on Google could refer to a list including Jewish people and Pagan people), I had also noticed that people had linked to it and sporked it to pagan-oriented online encyclopediae, and I notice now that there have been newspaper articles about Judeo-Paganism - and thus I have little difficulty in concluding that Judeo-Paganism is notable. I don't quite see the same amount of notability in the Shefa Network - make yourself heard more, then you'd get noticed and become notable.) — Rickyrab | Talk 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reasons to keep this article

I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer. They also refuse to read the sources that were given. Why? It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete its article, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa. At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion. It is a now a fact that:

• Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are contributors to Shefa
• Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are contributors.
• A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are contributors
• Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are working with Shefa.
• Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
• At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.

It seems that zero of the people trying to delete this article were aware of any of these facts. Since they now know these facts, one would imagine that they would change their mind. Let's note that the Shefa Network is more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia.

Note that the history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation. They are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. Worse, they refuse to even obtain any facts, sources, or talk to the many people involved. Isn't it obvious that some people are trying to delete this article despite its merits for inclusion? RK 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RK, I think you may have some misunderstanding regarding WP, on several fronts. First, you seem to be trying to cast suspicion on other contributors. It doesn't in the least matter if your suspicions are 'well founded' or not. The WP policy is that we accept good faith, as long as we want to be civil and to edit here, and that means we must not cast suspicions or worse, attack the integrity or judgment of others. And let me say that the speed of the PROD or AfD's appearance is not an issue - lots of new articles come up for deletion as soon as they are born. The motivation for the deletion nomination of such articles is immaterial - only the facts relative to WP inclusion policy matter. Assuming you want to push for inclusion of this article, which is a legitimate aspiration, you should move away from attacking others (again regardless of the merits), and focus instead on the WP criteria for inclusion. Now you raise some points above that to you seem like they 'justify' inclusion. But again you are off target. WP is not an institution that 'interviews' potential inclusion candidates. WP is an encyclopedia, that bases inclusion criteria on published reliable notability of the article subjects. Either there is reliably sourced notability or not. Being 'influential' or 'important' is not a WP criterion - being proven notable per reliable sources is. So what you should do, is look for verifiable reliable neutral published sources that prove that the article is notable. Thanks, Crum375 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would add to that. Despite believing that notability is proven, I see no real attempt to enhance this article to prove that notability beyond the slightest doubt. Knowing that somethng is notable is not the same as proving it. I understand RK's belief that the deletion attempt was remarkably fast, and that it might be sectarian inspired and I can see how assuming good faith is hard in view of what could easily be viewed as "aggressive edits" to place what seems to me to be a disproportionately great number of banners at the head of the article by the same editor. However, the banners are designed to be helpful. And it woudl behove knowledgable editors to edit the article to enance it, thus seeking to guarantee its place here. The energy spent on rehetoric woudl be better spent on research, and assertion of notability. Wikipedia os not an exercise in oratory. It is an exercise in researching and citing facts. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Given what's been said, I don't see the harm in allowing the article to remain and be improved (I'm just a newbie, but I'd like to learn what I can & work on various Wiki articles, including this one: already fixed a few minor inaccuracies). And given that notability "is not an actual policy or guideline" and that understandings of what would prove this group "notable" or not vary, I hope that the article will not be deleted. Since Wiki is not paper, there's plenty of room; the Shefa Network article is not cluttering the Conservative Judaism category, for which there are only 16 pages--there are 36 for the category of Orthodox Judaism, including organizations like Shema Yisrael Torah Network, where the objections that have been raised here would also be relevant--I certainly have no objection to articles on both! --BeccaB 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Note this is this editor's 7th edit with 5 of them being on this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete After looking at the article I see various issues with it including:
  • Massively undersourced
  • No real attempt to establish notability
  • Reads like a propaganda piece
  • Not wikified

Most of these are peripheral but the lack of establishment of notability for inclusion and the fact that it reads like a prop piece for the group are what sways me, if this article is cleaned up though I'd be more than willing to revisit this and I may try to do some cleanup myself later if I get a chance. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per RK. 172 | Talk 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see RK's vote above? I do see lots of comments by him, but not an actual vote by him. Also, he has yet to respond for my request for proof of reliably sourced notability. Crum375 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one has to accept that RK feels his vote has been cast, and as a strong keep. I would far rather he had devoted his energies to improving the article than to the rhetoric he has used here and elsewhere, and to replying to you (and, indeed, to me), but it is "clear" that he probably feels his oratory is equivalent to a strong keep. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have just spent some time tidying some aspects of this article. I have cited references to the items on the Shefa Network which appear in the media, and have also made the link to the new (and by no means yet notable) conservative judaism website. While that site is not yet notable it is also very new. While my opinion is alredy clearly stated that I already believe this article asserts sufficient notability, I feel these edits remove some other people's arguments against notability, though I appreciate that others will hold a different view. I believe we must apply a uniform yardstick to notability. I feel sufficient work has been done already, but do not dispute that more work can be done. Fiddle Faddle 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems to me that the main argument against this article is that the organization is considered non-notable. But since Wikipedia isn't paper, and articles like this don't take away space or attention, even the most ardent deletionists accept a pretty low threshold for notability. The policy asks that there are independent sources that confirm the existence of groups such as this, and it's pretty clear to me that this is a real thing. I guess my question to those of you who voted delete, is this: What evidence, specifically, would you require to see before you accepted that this organization is notable, i.e., that you'd change your mind? And please be as specific as possible. --Leifern 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally would like to see it cited and described in some respectable neutral publication. Since I myself supplied one of the links in the article, I would know 'respectable' and 'neutral' when I see them, but anyone can judge for him/herself, of course. But your thrust is correct, because that's exactly what's needed here - real proof of published notability, not a lot of hand waving. Crum375 03:22, 2 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 delete. Sango123 17:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack and Jill: The True Story

This is little more than a homemade digital movie posted to YouTube. -- TechsMechs 14:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. --Blog Mav Rick 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable short film NawlinWiki 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and the fact that it's posted on YouTube and nowhere else makes it fail WP:NFT. --Coredesat 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Eminently unnotable. --DaveG12345 03:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Appears vanity, plus NN. Zos 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Marmite Sisters

Only 25 Google hits, including copies of Wikipedia. Not notable enough, and the releases seems to be on extremly minor labels. Delete Jenny Wong 14:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The release on a German label suggests that the band was more than a local phenomenon. Google reports 254 hits for "marmite Sisters" (without the initial The). See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Marmite+Sisters%22 One of the band members subsequently became a well-known academic. TruthbringerToronto 15:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's 141 hits excluding Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For me 254 Google hits is enough to say non-notable. Ifnord 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It's hard to say whether it's notable enough. I've seen much less notable articles on Wikipedia. I think it just barely makes it in. That's why I vote for a weak keep. --BennyD 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Two flexidiscs and some cassettes, one vinyl 7-inch that you couldn't fold up (German label was Meller Welle, which tended to do releases by UK acts, you can read all about them on this site). This all seems to fail WP:MUSIC - no albums, solely Leicester-based reputation, now defunct. The "famous academic" ex-singer (Graham Barnfield) looks pretty un-notable too, certainly fails any WP:PROF test. --DaveG12345 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Barely passes WP:MUSIC. Not listed on discogs.com, but has a single album listed on allmusic.com. Royalbroil 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calday grange CCF

Per discussion in the AfD for this school's A-V club. This is the junior cadet chapter at a grammar school in Merseyside. The program may be notable. Chapters at individual schools is not. Fan1967 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn program. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 17:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN, main section is text dump from here so possible copyvio, Army section perhaps the epitome of "unencyclopedic", featuring huge unnecessary 1740x1158 images. --DaveG12345 19:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The pictures could be resized, but let's face it, why bother? Fan1967 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, local chapters of junior cadet programs are not notable on their own. --Coredesat 20:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (the only appropriate article related to this is the broad Combined Cadet Force article for the whole UK organisation. Jammo (SM247) 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I was a member of the Cross-Country team, the Rugby team, the Wargames Society, the Electronics Club, the Debating Society, a Librarian, sat on the Sixth Form Steering Committee at the school etc etc. Why do none of these appear as separate articles (after all many were as influential or important as the CCF)? Answer: obvious. Far too minimal importance. If it has any merit, it can go in the school's entry. Francis Davey 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and the article is complete crap. Modulus86 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? Francis Davey, what significance does any of that have? DaveG, i know for a fact theres no copyvio, beacause i helped write the text for the schools main website, and none of it is copywrited. The article has now been made less 'crap', modulus 86, Fan 1967, what pictures? and this does provide useful and wanted information for those members of the school who are just curious of the activities of the ccf, and those who are considering becoming part of it. Additionally mr davey, what part do the afformentioned societies play in the ccf? as of now, none. What harm can be done by leaving it? Maybe someone can answer this uestion, i can't myself, if you don't want to read it, don't! it's as simple as that. Refer to my comments on the page about the schools"AV club", which incidentally it is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.107.236 (talk • contribs)

• Comment "What pictures?" This edit [17] shows that the pictures were removed by IP address 84.65.107.236. That's you. Fan1967 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As much passionate hatred as I have for your "notability" rampages, if you must have a reason, maybe you should consider the fact that Raymond Towers Holmes passed through this ccf section. In case you do not know, he is a ww2 fighter pilot who saved buckingham palace by crashing his hurricane into the german aircraft, having no ammunition... blah blah - just read the wiki. not sure if this is on the page, but if not then It will be added, then it has "notability" and you can leave it alone and go and have a go at something else, although I wouldnt be surprised if there is some kind of quota for how many hundred famous personell must be involved with something for it to be "notable". Please stop this madness on this and the Technical Crew page with notability and leave it alone - there's really no need for this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwozone (talk • contribs)
• Comment See my most recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calday Grange technical crew. There is a need for this to be discussed and in light of the above probably deleted. SM247^{My Talk} 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Eigo

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}}

Completing Afd by anon IP. Nominated by 81.179.95.130 (talk · contribs). No vote. Fan1967 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable.
• Delete - Not notable. - 81.179.95.130 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His IMDB credits sound notable to me. TruthbringerToronto 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. He seems to have many enemies, based on the edits to the article and the votes here. That's probably a further argument in favour of his notability. TruthbringerToronto 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, contains false info - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.184.220.253 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Not notable, horrible scam artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.133.55 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. I see no evidence that the article contains false info or that he is a scam artist, but on the other hand I'm not convinced that he is notable merely for being a stuntman. --Metropolitan90 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Utterly nonnotable IMDB credits Bwithh 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this is a hoax, but I also don't think the subject merits an article. GassyGuy 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable. This artist is extremely popular in certain communitys devoted for martial arts and tricking, as well as in 'video communitys' such as youtube, ebaum etc. Also created a worl-wide web-based community 'multilevelmoves' that is gaining popularity and is already well-known. Artist has notable IMDB credits too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.241.129 (talk • contribs)

Hi Joe. - 81.179.95.130 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And although this is just my POV, it should probably be noted that Eigo is more commonly know for his hubris and comparative lack of ability in the tricking community more than anything. - 81.179.95.130 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Internet popularity on YouTube" just ins't going to cut it for me. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, nn. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with tmopkisn Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - HE does the same stuff over and over and is not worth an article on this thing. Also he loves the Noni, far too much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.25.215 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - I am not convinced that this makes him notable so I will not vote. But just pointing out some things to consider: He has independent bios here and here. And his videos are quite widespread on free video sites. He has also starred in a major movie with Jackie Chan and has an IMDB entry (also with an independent bio). He has been mentioned on the cover of Jackie Chan's magazine.--Konstable 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(It is also worth noting that I only found out about this page due to vandalism that I reverted here by one of the voting IP users, only to receive vandalism on my user page by the nominating IP user. So admins when counting votes you may want to disregard half of the above IPs as sockpuppets.)--Konstable 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal != sockpuppet. Any vandalism is probably due to the fact that several people (myself included) were made aware of this article through a forum. - 85.210.176.196 02:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eigo didn't star in a major movie with Jackie Chan. He was a stuntman in a major movie with Jackie Chan. There is a difference. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears vanity and NN. Zos 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carologic

Delete as NN neologism/dicdef. This is apparently some sort of Atlanta Falcons/Carolina Panthers message-board battle that's managed to spill over to Wikipedia. I had originally {{prod}}ed the article hoping that it would just go away, but the tag has been removed by one of the contributors. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, no incoming links, Neologism. Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Sources: Bankerbird, ionsen88, ebonymonk of the Atlanta Falcons message boards" kind of says it all. Fan1967 16:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as NN, Neologism, and also a potential target for vandalism. --DarkAudit 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO, vandal magnet. --Coredesat 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Origins in Middle English, 500 years before the Panthers were formed? Nice try. --DaveG12345 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower

• Delete China is currently a superpower and therefore, this page is irrelevant Blog Mav Rick 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. What are your grounds for making this claim? Any academic sourcing for the contention that China is now a superpower? Why didn't you raise this point on the article talk page first? Quite frankly, looking at your contribution history, I doubt good faith here.

Xdamr^talk 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

China meets criteria for superpower as specified on page.--Blog Mav Rick 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a debatable claim I think. However the 'Superpower Criteria' are not reliably sourced and should not be used to make these judgements. In fact we, as editors, should not be making these judgements ourselves. What we need is to find reputable academic sources which advance this claim. If 'China is a superpower' has become part of the academic consensus of International Relations then you can edit the relevant articles accordingly. But if you can't find such a source then don't do it (WP:OR).

Xdamr^talk 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, Speedy keep by the way (just in case anyone was in any doubt!) Xdamr^talk 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this - Archive 1

• Keep per Xdamr. deeptrivia (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks well-referenced. Addresses an important topic- even if China becomes a superpower it could be kept as a historical record. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could archive?

• Speedy keep. Discussions can go on the article's talk page but I don't see a criteria for deletion. Ifnord 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixie Hollins

School superintendent with school named for him; not enough for notability NawlinWiki 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable.--Blog Mav Rick 17:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a stub, and should be expanded. A school superintendent is at least potentially notable. TruthbringerToronto 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' as per nom or Merge with a Dixie Hollins high school article. Bwithh 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Schools are not inherently notable, and people who have schools named after them are also not notable unless they did something noteworthy on a more-than-local basis. --Coredesat 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Royalbroil 04:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please take another look at the article. As a pioneering educator in his community, and as someone who made generous donations (and school districts and schools don't seem to get many big donations), he was notable, at least within his county. TruthbringerToronto 04:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. After discounting newer editors (100 edits or less), I see four commenters for keep versus eleven for deletion. The established Wikipedians who argued for the inclusion of this article said relatively little in so doing -- this may yet other case where outside vote solicitation was ultimately self-defeating, as the dialogue was muddied by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia. The arguments laid out in the nomination and concurrences were never fully rebutted. Xoloz 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okashina Okashi

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}}

WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB

WEB: Google test -wikipedia -forums =~598 entries (Most of the sites are fansites and discussion forums not caught in the -forum.)

The article fails to meed WP:WEB.
1)The site has not been the subject of multi non-trivial published works.

In addition the site does not even include a trivial link mentioned in a Lexis-Nexis search of US newspapers for the last two years.

2)The site has won no major/recognized awards.
3)This content is not distro'd via an independant online publisher.
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
4) If any of these criteria exist the article does not provide proof via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Furthermore, this article cites a "large forum" per the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

COPYVIO:The article contains The text: Information quoted verbatim from the Okashina Okashi Character page with the comment: <!--This was submitted to Wikipedia by comic author ([[User:Xuanwu]]) and is NOT a copyright violation.-->.
However the page from which they are copied states that "Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy is ©2001-2005 by Emily Snodgrass, Allison Brownlow, Karen Olympia, and John Lee Baird and is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics." This is a probable violation of the Wikipedia GFDL.

Additional factors:
AB, NPOV, & VANITY:
The article is heavily edited by the writers of the comic.
NOR:
Finally, no original research. Nothing other than primary sources were cited for this page.

For the above reasons, this article should be removed (or heavily trimmed, or the copyright owners should put the things they want to include in GFDL license.) -- Kunzite 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• To any who read this: please note that I am currently working with the above member on fixing these points that have been raised. Please refrain from voting on this until modifications to the article have been made. Thank you. Xuanwu 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Update: copyright text has been removed and replaced with wholly original text. So WP:COPYVIO is no longer relevant to this case. I'll let the nominator remove the above tag. I'll work on taking care of NOR next. Xuanwu 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Update 2: a reference has been added for the Strange English Project. As for Hess's own information, that can be found in the Hess article also on Wiki which has the Hess main page. This means what the project is and how many kids it influenced can both be verified using the links and references provided in the article and are therefore not original research. Because of this, I think the comic passes the notability requirement due to its influence on the English education of several thousands of students. So my vote is Keep. Xuanwu 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:WEB is the major issue. The reference is more for Hess Educational Organization than Okashina Okashi. --Kunzite 00:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable vanity article which amounts to advertising. -- Dragonfiend 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Digging through the Google listings, the best link I could find was this obligatory passing mention in Ghastly's blog, over a year ago. No convention listings, no evidence of any noteworthy traffic, no awards, nothing. Regarding the Strange English project, I would make this observation: Commissions for small side projects are neither rare nor particularly notable. Penny Arcade has done over a dozen of them, but that's not why they have an article. Nifboy 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Strange English project was not a commission. It was an idea I came up with at Hess and implemented at my local branch. When the main office learned of it, they thought it was a great concept and spread it internationally via their curriculum publications (which, in addition to being "in house" are also sold globally), putting OO comics into classrooms around Asia. I'm aware of PA's school activities (as well as the one time use of Dinosaur Comics in a Japanese classroom), however, this is on a much larger scale, which is why I argue it qualifies as notable. It's a case of a webcomic being officially adopted by an educational organization for the purpose of instructing students of various levels. As far as I know, this is the first instance of a webcomic being endorsed in such a way and on an multinational scale. At the very least, it is an important event, since Hess has over 60,000 students (according to them), all of whom are affected by the curriculum created by the main office. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the article. And you don't have to take my word for it: check Hess's website and Taiwan business listings to see how large they are; Hess is not a small company. Xuanwu 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I was very much not referring or comparing to PA's school activities (which aren't even mentioned in their article). I am referring to projects like their involvement with the ESRB, and the multitude of mini-comics they've done for a number of different companies, one of which by itself (which, I feel, is comparable to OO's volunteer work) would not even come close to giving PA their own article. That you posted a call to action on the front page does nothing to help me believe it deserves an article on its own merits. Nifboy 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • My understanding is that it's quite normal to do a "call to action" when a comic's respective Wiki page is up for AfD (many non-comic pages have had similar "rallies"). It helps notify people who may not otherwise be paying attention that something is happening, since not everyone is on Wiki as frequently as others. I think your comparison of OO's work and PA's work with the ESRB and others is a bit off. To me, an educational institution is significantly different from marketing (which is the general category the ESRB example falls under). I won't go into it too much here to avoid clutter, but one way they're different: marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it. That's why I compared OO's Hess involvement with Tycho and Gabe's visits to schools, since it's at least in the same field. Wiki has many articles on types of curriculums and education developments, because they are notable due to their impact. I think it's arguable that the number of notable marketing campaigns is far fewer in number (at least, those notable in the sense of having a lasting impact on society beyond simply inserting a phrase into the public awareness for a time). So, for me, having had OO contribute to the curriculum development of a school that teaches thousands is a more significant achievement than if OO had, for example, drawn some art for an organization to use for ads. You seem to disagree on this point, which is fine. But I hope you understand my reasoning on this matter. Xuanwu 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A note on convention listings: according to Emi-chan, she's been invited to host a couple webcomics panels at Ushicon in the past. Unfortunately, the main Ushicon site seems to be a bare bones since they closed the con down in 2006. However, I found an independent verification of one of her appearances in 2003 via an anime fansite: Ushicon 2003 Panel. There's probably some more on 2001 or 2002 if you hunt for it. Xuanwu 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. WP:WEB feels like a bad way of deciding these matters in general, but there's no obvious reason not to follow it in this case. Not voting because I like the webcomic, and am therefore biased</ - many of the references in other articles definitely need to go, though, and it is essentially (as far as I can tell) one of a fairly large number of moderately popular but in no way significant webcomics. makomk 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's not one of the really big-name webcomics, but it certainly seems to be fairly well-known online, as far as I can tell. By the way, I can't follow the reason for WP:NOR being mentioned - it doesn't seem to contain original research (it seems to be pretty much the same as the other webcomic articles in terms of sources used, AFAICT) - could someone please explain? makomk 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Saying it's not notable enough for wikipedia is ridiculous. Information is what wikipedia is for, whether it's that notable or not shouldn't be a factor. It's not your place to judge what is notable or not. Neopets R God 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It isn't uncommon for "notable" achievements to go under the radar at times, so it's perhaps a bit short-sighted to limit it to what is on searchable venues. The vanity is an addressable issue. I haven't read the comic, but the issues brought up can be taken care of without deletion.Yansen 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, though it would probably be wise to address the vanity issues. I would first point out that by some people's definitions, no web comic is very notable in some sense ( with this coming down to how many internet users are even aware of web comics, to which I don't really know ). Granted I really don't have a good idea of which web comics are "notable" ( in the sense of web comics, assuming that some fair number are to be judged notable despite my first remark ), though apparently a large number are given a glance at the WP's webcomics project page. So while it is of concern that a lot of the editing was done by one of the web comic's authors, this can be remedied ( and in the meantime a marker could be added ). My keep rating is weak both due to the fact that I really don't know what "notable" for a web comic would be, and because I admittedly read the comic ( I'll let you all pick which reason's more important... :) ) DAG 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am apalled by the double standards applied here. How does basic, unbiased information suddenly become advertisement just because the authors entered it and not a casual observer, who might not have nearly as much to say on the subject? By such standards, any encyclopedic work which contains more than a passing mention on a subject is advertisement. It's also a comic with a large following, so you can't say it's not in any way notable. Even if I hadn't been a fan, I would raise these objections in the interest of fairness. Kajiki 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have added the warning template above as the OO page currently has a request (Xuanwu's news section dated 18 June) that people come and comment. This tends to cause a large number of newer users to comment, which the closing admin needs to be aware of. To those newer users, we're glad you are here. Please consider contributing constructively to other parts of the encylopedia and building experience with our policies... ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• This webcomic passes my test for notability, it is well known enough within webcomic circles to be one of the ones kept. I'm not sure I buy the "and it needs to be trimmed back a lot" argument. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (over 5K edits in case there was any question :) )
• Keep I find it interesting that newer forms of media, electronically produced and published for mass distribution are considered unencyclopedic while obscure punk bands from the 80's that I listened to in high school, that never had a following more than a few thousand are considered 'worthy' of being wiki'd. This isn't some kid's vanity page, it's a serious long running comic strip. If this is deleted then the slope becomes slippery, who decides if 'Dominic Deegan' or even Sluggy Freelance is worthy of wiki? for the record- I was pointed to this page, I am an avid reader of web-comics, I *don't* read or keep up with this comic, and I am an active wikipedian. Jonathan888 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, just to verify another editor's 'google' test - I show 57K hits on google - that's significant.198.50.4.4 16:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it is notable:it is ranked as 108/6705 in The Web Comic List (Info and current place at TWCL) -Solarius 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Citing the primary source is not original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: To the newcomers I'll point out that "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." -- Dragonfiend 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming by "primary source" you mean the comic itself, the article has at least two reputable third party sources: the Hess activity book, which I have given publishing details for, and the site that shows Emi-chan was invited to host a webcomics panel at a major convention. So the third-party requirement is fulfilled to the extent possible (I would not expect any webcomic to have as many third party sources as, for example, a historical or current events article). If you have a different view on primary vs. third party sources, please state them so they can be addressed. Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • By "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," we mean things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals, not webcomics fan blogs and the like. Our standards for sourcing and accuracy in an encyclopedia article need to be as least as high as that of a junior high school research paper. If this topic is not covered by multiple, non-trivial, reliable, reputable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we should delete this article, because we are not working on building an encyclopedia full of unreliable, error-riddled trivia. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... okay. If I'm reading what you and WP:Verifiability are saying correctly, there may be a slight problem. I don't think it's possible to write a useful article on even as widely-known a webcomic as Megatokyo whilst meeting these requirements, though I could be proved wrong. (The current Megatoyko article definitely appears to have verifiability and WP:NOR problems, but at least some are down to carelessness). Of course, it's possible to get some of the information from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but I'm not convinced you'd get a significant amount of information that way. - makomk 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I understand what you mean, Dragonfiend. From the guidelines: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Since this is a webcomic, summaries of the comic itself are allowed to use the comic as a "reliable source." So I think we can all agree the character and plot summaries that make the bulk of the article all satisfy verifiability since it is possible to read the comic and confirm what's stated (i.e. the summaries refer to a published primary source). The claim about the forum size is also verifiable simply by going to said forum. The Strange English Project already cites a reference published by a "reputable publisher" (i.e. Hess, whose credentials are quite good in the field of educational publications). And the comments made concerning OO's staff changes are based on statements made by the creative team themselves; publicly viewable direct quotes satisfy the verifiability requirement, especially since I used the ones that were archived (this is as opposed to direct quotes that are not publicly viewable, such as through email, or those that are not archived, like forum threads which can be deleted at any time, which are not verifiable). For example, if John Kerry published an opinion on his blog, said opinion could be added to his Wiki article since it's a publicly viewable direct quote from him that can therefore be referenced in the future (but only in its archived form, so it doesn't disappear). The same type of citation is made here. Not every article requires the same type of references in order to be reliable and accurate; in this case, since there are only a few claims beyond plot summaries, the amount of references is few, though their quality - and associated notability - is high. So the purpose of the verifiability requirement, making sure articles aren't "error-riddled," has been satisfied, since no errors are present in the article and it is possible to prove so with the references contained therein. Xuanwu 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No, actually what we mean by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," are things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals. Things like webcomics or blogs or online forums, on the other hand, generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or credibility. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
          • In that case the article satisfies the requirement to the extent necessary, since it has a reference in the Hess book, which could count loosely as an "academic journal." The book underwent a process of peer review and editing, which is the important feature of a third-party source (in contrast, a non-peer reviewed academic journal would not satisfy the verifiability requirement). I don't think there are any webcomic articles that use third party sources for plot and character summaries (since using the primary source of the comic itself is superior to a third party source for that info). So, the verifiability requirement has been met for this particular article. When OO does other notable things, I'll be sure to watch out that editors reference "credible, third-party sources" to verify it as has been done already. Xuanwu 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
            • So, your only claim of a credible third-party source is a single clasroom exercise that you created with your webcomics? According to your vanity article, "The Strange English Project began in July 2005. Xuanwu, then an English teacher in the Republic of China (ROC) working for Hess Educational Organization, took OO comics and blotted out the dialogue. ... The Strange English Project itself has become adopted by Hess and is now part of its recommended games and activities..." I'm not convinced that classroom games and activities found in a single book are notable, or that you creating a game about your webcomic is a very good third-party claim of notability. Also, your promise to continue your vanity edits to your vanity article don't give me much hope for this article. Let's delete this unverifiable vanity article. -- Dragonfiend 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I recommend you re-read my earlier posts, as I make clear why a "single classroom activity" is important when said activity is then applied on an international scale. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but I think you understand why I view a book published by Taiwan's largest English education curriculum provider as a good third-party source. On another note, your RfA made it clear you're supposed to behave with civility, not engage in bad faith comments by using the word "vanity" like a slur. Please be more polite to your fellow editors. A civil AfD discussion is best for everyone involved. :) Xuanwu 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANITY. I believe you will find that "vanity" is not a "slur", but instead an accurate description of many of the problems with this article you have written about your webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Just as a side comment: I find this whole conversation very interesting indeed. I recently completed an MLIS degree, and the one thing which every last professor who even mentioned Wikipedia said was "Wikipedia does not, under any circumstances, constitute a valid source for research, but it does tend to have articles which cover subjects which would not be listed in standard reference books and therefore can be useful." I find it tremendously interesting that there are Wikipedia editors who want to pursue academic respectability -- which they will probably never achieve -- at the expense of the one thing which undeniably makes the whole enterprise worthwhile from an outside standpoint. -- An anonymous Wombat
• Keep: It is hosted (as is plainly visible) on ComicGenesis (neé Keenspace) which is one of the best-known independent online publishers of smaller webcomics; that ought to satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. 81.2.97.157 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If that argument were true then every site hosted on geocities would satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. Choice of hosting company does not make a website notable. --Kunzite 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comicgenesis is not Geocities. It's an online publisher of webcomics, not a free website host. It does have some quality control, and it is essentially the 'amateur wing' of Keenspot. "Strange Candy" (Okashina Okashi) is well-known, with links from Megatokyo at one time; it's one of the more established comics on Comicgenesis/Keenspace. If you felt OO didn't satisfy WP:WEB, then neither would almost any other Keenspace/Comicgenesis comic, as webcomics are rarely referenced or reviewed in print and therefore do not usually satisfy #1, except for those that have won awards (#2); what is your criterion for keeping the entries of any of the others? Do you feel they are also not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia? I still say keep; I feel that deleting their already-existing entries is contentiously and arbitarily destroying valuable reference material for which Wikipedia is well known. Of course, you're the editors, it's your wiki, it doesn't aim to be complete, and you are of course free to disagree. 81.2.97.157 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Give me a list of others. I'll evaluate the notability and put those up who do not meet WP:WEB as well. I'm not discriminating against this one comic.

The problem is that just because it is published by a publisher with some standards for content acceptance DOES NOT MEANT THAT IT IS NOTABLE. We certainly do not have an article for every scientific book put out by Elsevier, we don't have an article for every science fiction book put out by Tor, or even every history book put out by Random House. We also do not create an article for every single dissertation made the post-graduate students at the University of Michigan. These are places that publish works which more-likely-than not are more notable and contain more important subjects than this web comic. Why don't we have articles for these things? Because notability is not determined by the publisher or the fact that something has been published. Notability is not determined by who links to the site.

If a webcomic is notable it should be listed. You mention Megatokyo which has won national awards and has been published by a non-vanity press, and is listed as one of the top manga-style publications sold in the country by a third party record keeper. It deserves its own article. I hate to put this comic down, as it seems the author has worked hard on his this article, but it's just not notable and it shouldn't get a free ride Megatokyo's or Keenspace's coattails into the notability column. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I have a Comic Genesis strip [18]. I can very much say that it does not deserve its own article on that basis alone. Nifboy 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kunzite and Nifboy on this: simply being on Keenspace does not grant notability (this was a point I agreed with when I helped craft WP:WEB). My argument for notability, however, is not based on who it is published by. So pointing out that publisher and notability are not causally related does nothing to weaken my own arguments for OO's notability. :) Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep just because I like the comic and it's well-known enough to have its own article. --Passerby Cat ^{talk cat} 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  How is it well known enough to have it's own article? Your goodwill towards the publications it does not make the notability claim. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • 60-some thousand school kids in Taiwan and Singapore know about OO (the templates used all had OO's name and URL on them) thanks to the Strange English project. I think that satisfies a claim of being "well known." Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And... This does not meet notability.

X-number of people "knowing" about something or using it in a academic setting is not the stuff of notability. Does the math textbook that they use have an entry on wikipedia? Should a class assignment on diagraming sentences that uses cartoons drawn by a student-teacher in Fargo, North Dakota use them? I assisted a librarian in creating a set of library instruction handouts that have been used by 8,000 incoming college freshmen students at a major urban university for the past few years. It has used by several tens-of-thousands of students. My hometown newspaper has a circulation of over 70,000 and the advertisment for the locally owned Super-Jiffy-Quick Tire Shop that runs the same "$10.50 off the next tire rotation" coupon every week also doesn't meet notability.

Secondly, the citation in "Language Learning Games and Activities" vol. 3(?)[19] is a self citation. The book hasn't even been cataloged by a single library in OCLC. How many places use it outside of Hess? How many copies has the book sold? How many were outside of a Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) suggests that we could always add to something like the main webcomics or the Hess page as a trivia item: "Note that if a professor [i.e. educator] is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, or event, it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." Perhaps this is the route that we should take with the information presented here.

An IMBD reference to an appearance on a cable-access style show also doesn't connotate notability. We just recently deleted one for a similar-style show in Alaska called Stupid and contagious.

Could I get the rational for using pseudonyms in the article? It makes this article read like forumcruft. --Kunzite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Kunzite. Creating a single exercise in a text book is a trivial rather than a notable accomplishment. -- Dragonfiend 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I use an alias instead of my real name from personal preference. And I did not intend for the IMDB link to be proof of notability; I put it in there simply as a "fun fact." It's why I did not bring it to the AfD discussion. And see above for my contrasting of marketing vs. education in terms of notability. Xuanwu 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it." Personal philosphy on the value of (one?) education assignment is still not a reason to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. (As per my comparison to library instruction handouts.) --Kunzite 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's citation of WP:WEB.--Rockero 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Discount votes from "editors" without edit counts unrelated to this AfD. Ifnord 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Kunzite 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First one to use my T&E:510 rule on, and it fails. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom or Transwiki to the webcomics wiki, whatever its calledBwithh 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This was closed. It was closed Keep - no consensus. It was then reopened and relisted. I believe that relist was incorrect and I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 24. I previously commented that I believed the relist was incorrect but Dragonfiend refactored that comment to the talk page. I believe that refactor was also inappropriate. Please do not refactor this comment. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I initially closed it, but then Dragonfiend raised a concern about whether verifiability had been properly addressed. I felt that it had not, so I relisted it. There is an open discussion at WP:DRV about whether my decision to relist was correct - but, for now, the discussion is relisted and any new comments are welcome. Cheers TigerShark 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Notable only to those heavily into the subject. Most keep votes seem to carry a bias. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Doesn't quite seem notable enough within the webcomic community. WP:V arguments are silly in this case though, what's to verify? Applying WP:V to a webcomic is like applying WP:BIO to the battle of the bulge. - Wickning1 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Point 1 - This webcomic fluctuates between 3rd most popular and 15th most popular comic on ComicGenesis Top 50, ranked by pages served(Ghastly omitted) . Point 2 - Wikipedia editors tend to flag all webcomic entries as Vanity, due to the webcomic owners over-editing the pages for correctness. Point 3 - You can verify it's popularity from the third party stat tracker. Point 4 - You can verify it's popularity from it's own links to top webcomics (ranked 101 out of 6500, that makes in the top 1%),Point 5 - Wikipedia should no more be used as a staple of content's popularity than google. It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia does delete an entry, but by deleting everything that "isn't popular enough" to an objective value to be included creates a barrier to entry that discourages people from contributing anything in the first place. - User:Kisai 00:47, 26 June 2006 (PDT)
  • Comment: 1) Being about the 10th most popular webcomic on a particular free webhosting site is rather trivial when you consider the tens of thousands which are not on that site. If being number 10 on this website were that big of a deal then their would be plenty of reliable sources writing about this webcomic and the creator of this webcomic probably wouldn't have to write an article about themselves. 2) This is not flagged for WP:VANITY because the webcomic's author simply corrected some errors in the article. It is flagged for vanity because the webcomic's author created the article and has edited it heavily ever since. Check out the history [20] which clearly shows the webcomic author creating the article and making about 60 edits to it, more than all other editors combined. Check out this diff [21] which shows the webcomics author making 14 consecutive edits to the article over the course of several months in which they add 20-some odd paragraphs of completely new content. This is the furthest possible thing from someone simply correcting mistakes in an article about themselves; this is the absolute definition of WP:VANITY where someone creates a lengthy encyclopedia article about themselves. 3) We don't have inclusion standards for web sites based on their traffic. If an extremely low traffic site has a huge impact on culture that is verifiable through reliable sources (it's written about in the New York Times and Wired Magazine, for example) then we might write an article about it. If a high traffic site is unverifiable through reliable sources, then we can't have an article, because we're building a reliable encyclopedia. 4) Simlar to your first point, being just outside the top 100 on a site that measures a fraction of all webcomics is rather meaningless and trivial. 5) This isn't up for deletion because it "isn't popular enough." it's up for deletion because it violates a large number of guidelines and official wikipedia polices, from Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to Wikipedia:Verifiability and beyond. Finally, are you the same "Kisai" that's listed as being one of the two "folks behind Comic Genesis"? [22] If so, that would be a good thing to disclose in order to minimize any conflict of interest issues inherent in telling people how notable the webcomics hosted on your site are. If not, sorry for the mix-up. -- Dragonfiend 06:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above; Google is not the only search engine in the world, nor is it an absolute authority on notability. Plus, this article might be vanity, but it will definitely not be that way in the future after the article is given time to stabilize. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and thus we must work on articles to bring them to an acceptable level of quality. I believe a lot of people forget that sometimes and would rather take the easy way out. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AB, WP:VERIFY & WP:RS per nom and others. Discount votes from ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/new "editors" per Ifnord. HotWings 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kisai. I have been watching this debate for awhile, now, and I find Kisai's reasoning valid enough to keep the article. JimmyBlackwing 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know that Wikipedia has alot of difficulty with Webcomics, but I belive this one is notable enough for it to be maintained. Jack Cain 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionaly, I belive that the majority of problems seen with this article are driven by badly misguided good intentions. I mean, we have articles with more serious problems that need the attention of serious editors, like List of misleading food names. Jack Cain 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep: Merge and redirect to Worlds Apart. —Centrx→talk • 05:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ode to Isis

Non-notable song from non-notably album by not particularly notable band (which both have Wikipedia entries anyway). After reading the article, I can find no particular reason why the song merits an article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Worlds Apart; WP is not paper, so the info can fit into the article of the album; but the song isn't notable enough to have its own article -- Where 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Where. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Worlds Apart. --Coredesat 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --DaveG12345 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep-- 9cds^(talk) 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General William Hague

Fails notability tests and is a completely useless and irrelevant piece about an entirely fictional character Nesher 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per Google search with 120 hits. I wouldn't call it useless. Ifnord 17:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as notable as characters in other sci-fi series that also have write-ups. --DarkAudit 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. A line at the parent article would be plenty. Deizio talk 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Keep The Babylon 5 article seems to have spin-off bios on a host of minor "recurring" characters, but this one only has a single mention in that article, under "Trivia". This seems to indicate über-minor notability. If this article was better integrated into that article/project, it might better warrant a keep. --DaveG12345 15:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (switched to weak keep, assuming some work is done on this - as stated above, as notable as any Babylon 5 "recurring character") --DaveG12345 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP, as a notable element in Babylon 5... the B5 articles don't seem to be in very good shape, but he is a major character, even if JMS was pissed off at the actor and killed him off. 70.51.10.221 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, minor character on the popular show Babylon 5. Royalbroil 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fabuloso Chess

Fabuloso Chess looks like a series of non notable amateur correspondence chess games played on a Wiki (currently the 2nd game starts) + some jokes around. 1 (one) independent Google hit. Ioannes Pragensis 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; also, notability not asserted -- Where 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 21:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ze Frank's entry has a link to his own wiki --Somejeff 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatter Than Albert

I hate to do this because I'm from New Orleans and have heard of these guys -- but they're just a local band, unsigned to any label per article. NawlinWiki 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 -- Where 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7. Article has been tagged. --Coredesat 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, WP:CSD A1 ("little or no context). Deizio talk 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flippiperazine

Advertising of some New Zealand website's supposedly "legal high" drugs, I'd vote speedy delete if there were a criterion for it NawlinWiki 18:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Coredesat 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- r2b2 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Trail of Blood

Religious advocacy in an essay form, POV-pushing, possibly original research Skysmith 18:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research and borderline nutty. Page creator has also been vandalising Baptist article with the same text. ... discospinster _talk 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Whomp [T] [C] 18:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Religous advocacy, fails WP:NPOV. PROD removed then reinstated. --DarkAudit 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anand^(talk) 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Straight copy of very POV religious tract (not a copyvio according to author, though). Tevildo 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As POV as anything I've seen. Fan1967 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Terminal WP:NOR/WP:NPOV fail, we also don't post contact/business details here, fails WP:NOT A4, A6, A7. --DaveG12345 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a forum for original research or a repository for essays on religion which have sections in ALL CAPS. Grandmasterka 06:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep. —Centrx→talk • 06:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard D Feinman

Non notable, poor quality, no references. Nick Mks 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:BIO. Jacek Kendysz 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been improved since it was nominated. Feinman is a full professor at a prestigious medical school, and should be taken seriously. TruthbringerToronto 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article looks somewhat better now. --Coredesat 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the sum of being a professor, author, and editor make him notable. Royalbroil 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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

[edit] I Know What You Did Before Last Summer

• Delete. Creation of unreferenced prequel article from editor with history of creating fictional prequel-sequel articles in the "Last Summer" series. (Hooked: the Final Cut, etc., etc.). Since he/she's introducing a prequel now, this can't be zapped via {{db-repost}}, though. — Mike • 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, no Google hits for the title, if that matters for anything. — Mike • 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no Google hits and no information on Sony Pictures site. --DarkAudit 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - no google hits, no imdb.com listing, no actors listed in imdb.com as being in such a film. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted... it's either unverifiable, or a blatant hoax. Either way, it's gone. -- The Anome 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)