Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone With The Blastwave

It's hard to imagine, I know, but Wikipedia is home to more non notable Webcomics than then entire internet combined. This one can be seen here, already up to its 17th strip! Their forums have less than 150 users and the domain its hosted on has an Alexa rank of 450,000. A prod tag was removed because the comic managed to achieve a rank of 9 on the buzzcomics topsite. This is pretty meaningless, as even tripe like InSONICnia manages to get into their top 25 and with only 130 Google hits, no decent sources, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Banish it to Comixpedia if necessary Bwithh 00:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable webcomic--TBCTaLk?!? 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pending reliable sources. nn Ziggurat 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In my opinion, a web comic is notable.--Summonmaster13 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep At least the web comic is referenced. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but if it ever gains notability, don't let the previous AFDs be held against it like Dr McNinja. BoojiBoy 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not currently notable. --Coredesat 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. -- Kicking222 02:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Interlingua ^talk 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable by reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable webcomic Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete less than 150 users on a forum shows that it isn't notable.--Andeh 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Post-nuke it. --DaveG12345 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article should be gone with the blastwave. ---Charles 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Xyrael _{/ 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ForestH2
• Keep The 3-month ranking of GWTB includes a hiatus, and shouldn't be trusted too much. Low activity on the forum doesn't mean anything, since they have a shoutbox they use instead. I think that if Wikipedia wants a "comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics", then we should at least keep comics that are in the top 10 on the major webcomic ranking sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainman (talk • contribs) 03:56, June 27, 2006
  • Comment: As this is an encyclopedia, we require that articles be verified by reliable sources. That is, not somebody's shoutbox or a "major webcomic ranking site." This fails my junior high school research paper test -- since my junior high school English teacher would never let me write a research paper based on somebody's shoutbox or webcomics ranking site, then I definitely don't expect to write encyclopedia articles based on such trivial, unreliable sources, either. -- Dragonfiend 15:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki for now. I agree with BoojiBoy that if (when) this comic becomes notable, it should have an article. But it's notability has not been proven sufficiently at the moment. Xuanwu 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator is at the very border of civility. Please leave your personal opinions out of this and try to stick to facts. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:45, 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 per below.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil's Return (manga)

Copyvio - straight lift from website. BlueValour 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If it is a blatant copyright violation, then it can be tagged with speedy deletion. See WP:CSD - A8. - Hahnchen 00:14, 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) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OneCone

Non-notable group/forum that makes unknown films. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as the nominator said. - Richardcavell 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - due to the sluggishness of the IMDb system, the film hasn't been submitted yet. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:10, 20 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:N, WP:RS. If there is any source anywhere proving notability, I can't see it. Crum375 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG, WP:WEB, WP:VANITY (the creator of the article is a member of OneCone), and WP:ADS. Only 21 relevant Google results--TBCTaLk?!? 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG, WP:WEB, and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing on IMDB (which IMHO is the bare-minimum standard to even consider film-related articles) and the listed $500 budget of one project doesn't suggest notability either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Interlingua ^talk 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Xyrael _{/ 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's no longer funny. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:32, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice commerce

Seems like ordinary dictionary definitions of "voice" and "commerce", not helped by reference to website of "Voice Commerce Group" in the first line NawlinWiki 21:11, 19 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• No one voted? Fine, I will. Delete. BoojiBoy 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a dicdef and advertisement--TBCTaLk?!? 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, no sources, no dict, nn. Crum375 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamadvertisement. —Khoikhoi 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Jacek Kendysz 09:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. "Transacting?" MEGO. Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Xyrael _{/ 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 17:00, 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 all redirected to Daily Kos and protected. There is a significant majority here who support deletion, redirection and/or merging, and as there is already content on Armando in Daily Kos I see that as sufficient consensus for the redirect. This article is so light on content of interest to those outside the blogosphere, with the only claims to outside recognition being a few radio appearances, that I see neither convincing reasons nor overwhelming majority opinion to keep this article against its subject's wishes.

The subject's objection to this article does not influence my decision - but I do suspect that, given the extreme lack of substance to this article, the generation of so much hot air (or impassioned discussion, if you prefer) towards getting this article kept on its own partly arises from a backlash against his agitation.

The continued existence of Armando Lloréns-Sar as a redirect may be a privacy issue, however this AfD has not sufficiently addressed that issue to support a deletion of that redirect, so if deletion of that redirect is desired it should be taken to redirects for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armando (Blogger), Armando Lloréns-Sar, Armando (blogger)

OK, this is as a follow-up to the 1st nomination (edited to include last unblanked version) which was brought up for review. The review was unanimous in favor of overturning/relisting, as far as I can tell, but was not properly closed but removed as moribund (review here). ~ trialsanderrors 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: [Full professional name] is the blogger Armando on Daily Kos and as such was deemed notable by most editors. The issue revolved around privacy because WP seemingly was used to spread private information on Armando. After new evidence on public appearances was posted this became moot, and can be traced now from various 1 1/2 news articles. So the question that remains for the community to find consensus on is:

1. Is Armando as a blogger notable?
2. Would it be better to merge or redirect to Daily Kos and add the news story there?
3. Should this be deleted outright?

I'm recusing myself from the debate, but mention that "[FULL NAME] and variants don't pass my T&E:510 test. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE After User:Hipocrite's unilateral action, the question becomes: Should this article be kept as a stand-alone, either at Armando Lloréns-Sar or at Armando (blogger) (note correct capitalization), should it be redirected with or without merging any current or prior content to Daily Kos, or should both versions be deleted outright? ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: I have renamed the article and the AFD to comply with WP:BLP Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Only 315 Google results--TBCTaLk?!? 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (posted prior to finishing nomination ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment Try searching on armando (dailykos OR 'daily kos') instead. 349,000 hits? That's notable. Dori 03:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Google Test doesn't work well when dealing with bloggers and online personalities. In Armando's case, nearly all of the references are from other political blogs and after the first 5 pages, all of them seem to be from the Daily Kos website itself. Maximusveritas 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Then try armando (dailykos OR 'daily kos') -site:dailykos.com. The result is 149,000 pages not on dailykos. Again, I think that that counts as notable. Dori 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daily Kos; there doesn't seem to be enough independent of that site to warrant separate inclusion. Ziggurat 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RPA. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to the Daily Kos page. Not enough notability by himself Bwithh 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If he's enough of a public figure that he's asked to talk about politics on NPR and Majority Report Radio [1] and at Stanford [2], then he should have an article. Dori 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Majority Radio airs on Air America not NPR. They seem only to be interested in this guy for his Kos connection. The majority of speakers listed for the Stanford conference are not notable enough for Wikipedia and armando is not listed as a lead speaker. Bwithh 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't say that Majority Radio aired on NPR. I said he'd been on both The Majority Report and NPR [3]. I couldn't find a good link for the latter, so I didn't include it. It's still weak, although sufficient to show that he has talked on both. But I never claimed the two were related. Dori 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It should be noted that Armando is given a lower billing at that conference panel than a law school student. In all 3 of his public appearances, he is there in his capacity as a blogger at Daily Kos. Now that he's no longer a blogger, are we really going to assert that a couple years of contributing at a blog and a couple panel appearances on radio are enough to establish notability? Maximusveritas 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Why wouldn't we? I don't understand this argument, can you explain? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm questioning whether "a couple years of contributing at a blog and a couple panel appearances on radio" is enough to establish notability. It does not satisfy any of the criteria set out by WP:BIO. As I noted down below, Armando wasn't even mentioned in the Daily Kos article prior to this incident. The separate article on him was created solely for the purpose of further publicizing his identity and hurting him. I fail to see any reasonable argument for why this article should be kept. Maximusveritas 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Consider New Republic article cited below. ~ trialsanderrors 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, but even that article discusses him only in relation to the Daily Kos site/convention. I think that's good enough to establish his notability on the Daily Kos page, but not enough for his own page. Also, WP:BIO does generally ask for "multiple" independent articles. Maximusveritas 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
              • OK, your call on how to evaluate the sources. You just did not seem to take it into account. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, I had forgotten about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Maximusveritas 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment And after only about two hours, User:Guettarda has deleted the contents of the article. Well that didn't last long. Dori 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was an attack article, so it was speedyable. In addition, it was not deleted, it was a redirect. There's nothing wrong with reverting it to a redirect. There's nothing for AFD. Guettarda 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh? I'm not familiar with the subject and I haven't been involved with the previous discussions, but (even though I agree that it isn't notable) I don't really see how the previous version was an attack page. [4] Could someone clarify this for me?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • • The page was used to "out" the subject, connecting his real-life identity with his username on dKos. He had worked to keep his real-life identity separate from his blogging. Once the page was created, being Wikipedia it became highly visible. It was then picked up by NRO. Since he saw it as a threat to his livelihood, he quit blogging. Using a Wikipedia article to "out" someone and threaten their livelihood is clearly an attack. It should have been speedy'd when it first appeared. Guettarda 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is my understanding that the subject of the article, User:armandoatdailykos, wanted it deleted. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you feel like it you can read the whole story on the 1st nomination page. If you want the short version, the original editor used publicly available information to link ALS the lawyer to Armando the (then anonymous) blogger. The consensus was in favor of Speedy/Delete until it turned out that Armando the blogger had on two prior public speaking occasions identified himself as ALS the lawyer. After that there was no strong reason to delete and the majority voted for keep, more or less ignoring the Notability question. The closing admin deleted because the page was blanked and protected by User:Guettarda. ~ trialsanderrors 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • This reminds me of the Tron naming controversy that occured at the German Wikipedia, which revealed the identity of a hacker called Tron against the wishes of his parents. Even so, the article was kept in the end (which also resulted in a temporary restraining order in a Berlin court against Wikimedia Foundation).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - attack article that was used to drive him to quit blogging. It's a disgrace that Wikipedia is used for this purpose. Guettarda 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD review ended in 3 Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version, 3 Relist, an admission by the closing administrator that he deleted in error, and the restoration of the edit history. You're clearly acting against community consensus here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Aren't we forming a new community consensus now? I agree with Guettarda, per WP:RPA. This material would not be tolerated in user or talk space, and we are far more liberal about what we allow there. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Reverting to the redirect is against community consensus. Please explain what you consider PA in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • To begin with, no it is not. Anyone can edit an article. There is nothing that says that you cannot change an article back to a redirect. It is patently false to claim that it is "community consensus" that the article should not be a redirect. The majority opinion expressed was to delete the article; merge had substantial support. Few people have expressed the opinion that the article should be anything more than a redirect. It's ridiculous to claim that minority view represents "consensus". Guettarda 05:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I just noticed now that you left the AfD tag up on your second revert, so I strike the part above. The consensus referred to the review, not the 1st AfD. The 1st AfD was a clear no consensus, but also with a clear drift towards Keep after the revelation of the 2 sources. ~ trialsanderrors 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two links from the 1st nomination for reference: Begin quote

Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.

Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.

--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

End quote ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Stanford is the secondary source, since they clearly did not make up the bio stub. The primary source is Armando himself. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the basic fact that the article is an attack article that was used to threaten the livelihood of the subject. It doesn't change the fact that it's disgraceful that Wikipedia should be used in such a way. It doesn't change that fact that using Wikipedia in such a way hurts the project because it earns us additional ill-will and fodder for our critics. Just because we can have an article on a subject doesn't mean that we should have that article. It isn't acceptable to use Wikipedia as a tool for harrassment and threats. Guettarda 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, a similar issue happened last year in the Tron naming controversy, where an article was kept by the Wikimedia foundation even though it contained personal information on the subject (such as the hacker's real name). I believe that Wikipedia's response to that situation should be applied to this situation. However, if this article is to be deleted, in my opinion it should be because of the WP:BIO guideline, not WP:RPA --TBCTaLk?!? 05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Tron was a. underage and b. did not personally reveal his full name? ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tron was underaged and his full name was revealed in a Wikipedia article, against the wishes of his parents and the ruling of a Berlin court (until the ruling was later overturned).--TBCTaLk?!? 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tron is also not a living person (he died in 1998) so WP:BLP doesn't apply to him. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as it fails WP:BIO per arguments above. Keep read some more about it, appears to be notable. Whether or not the article was used to "out" someone in the past is irrelevant to the present incarnation of the article; whether it was right or wrong, it's in the past, and deleting the article isn't going to change it. Excluding information for this reason will, moreover, impose unnecessary limits on Wikipedia. If properly sourced, I see no reason for excluding such information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moral statement. ikh (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *Merge (aka, retain as redirect to Daily Kos). Fails WP:BIO except in conjunction with Daily Kos. WP:RPA clearly does not apply. (At this point, those who read the first AfD and still believe that Wikipedia is the source of the "outing" do not deserve WP:AGF. I'm not naming names, but it was clearly revealed that he was outed before the date of the article (if everything was undeleted).) WP:BLP suggests we need to watch the article carefully for relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO. Highly notable blogger providing it is verifiable which it seems to be. I have no problems with Wikipedia providing publicly available information on significant bloggers providing it meets our verifiability standards which it seems to do. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • agreed (thats a keep btw)  ALKIVAR™ 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. This meets verifiability standards, period. WP is not censored, etc, and having his name out there certainly doesn't violate any laws. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Passes WP:BIO, not legally defamatory. Tevildo 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. While I personally don't think bloggers are notable at all unless they are published in real media, there is certainly nothing in this article that can't go into Daily Kos. What is said there about "Armando" is all that needs to be said. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Arthur Rubin, Aguerriero. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect without any Merge of any data. The info on Armando on the Daily KOS article is sufficient. •Jim62sch• 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• redirect Boldly done already. People who disagree are directed to WP:BLP, which they will follow, or be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What part of BLP does this comply with? I see nothing to suggest in the guideline that this change makes sense, nor do I see anything that would allow anyone to be "blocked" due to a disagreement regarding your interpretation of a guideline, not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • BLP reads, in part "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)." WP:BLP has wide consensus. If you fail to follow it, you will almost certainly be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is fine, and your change eliminates plenty that is relevant to his nobility. As noted elsewhere, the blocking policy concerning this type of threat, which is the part you should focus on, states that "[e]ditors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation." Mentioning who Armando is in the title and sourcing the information about National Review, a major publication, outing him violates nothing, and I believe your threats are entirely without merit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 1. Neither the print nor online versions of National Review has used his name - only their low-readership media blog.
          • Which is an extension of the magazine. Regardless, his full name is still in the WP entry, and has been used in association with the blog in numerous other places besides that, such as NPR. It's certainly not a secret, nor does it fall under any sort of "defamation." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 2. I refer specifically to information designed to harm the individuals career - his employer, for instance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant to this discussion. A Wikipedia entry that mentions a sourced situation which has been out in the open for weeks now has absolutely no danger in harming his career. Armando's use of his name in attachment to his appearances on the radio, for instance, did not supposedly harm his career. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • It is not established that he used his full name on the radio on purpose, or gave it to the radio show in confidence and they released it without checking with him first. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 3. Further, it would be disruption to consistantly violate the other sections of WP:BLP - specifically, the part about "primary sources" and that you can't use them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • We're not using any primary sources, either, so this point is moot. A primary source would be, as an example, the link to Armando's law firm that has his name, picture, and contact information without attribution to the fact that he's been outed. A secontdary source would be NRO mentioning which law firm he works at. The third party information is the NRO information, the NPR link, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ziggurat. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Er, was there some sort of controversy surrounding the redirect that stood for about 8 days without reversion? I think going back to the Redirect to Daily Kos is the best idea.--Isotope23 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That eight days was during the deletion review, so it's not relevant. Dori 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, ah, so there was some sort of controversy. Interesting... doesn't change my opinion though... redirect is sufficient because subject is right on the line of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because he's notable enough. Thumbelina 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on comment by Capitalistroadster, this person is notable. Yamaguchi先生 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge anything useful. This person appears well-known for association with Daily Kos, but any post-Kos notability seems unverifiable, and WP is not a crystal ball. --DaveG12345 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge to Daily Kos --Ragib 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. —Xyrael _{/ 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge anything notable and verifiable to Daily Kos, per above. Jim Butler^(talk) 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons enumerated above. --Myles Long 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge. As I mentioned on the previous AfD, Armando wasn't even mentioned in the Daily Kos article prior to this incident. His only claim to fame is as a former contributor to the Daily Kos website. After this incident, it is appropriate to mention him in that article, but he is certainly not notable enough for his own page. Maximusveritas 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment New Republic write-up on Yearly Kos and the controversy subscriber link, Google cache:

But someone is missing: Armando. A favorite blogger and foreign policy wonk, Armando earned the privilege of posting on the front page of Daily Kos. But, before the festivities began in Las Vegas, National Review Online revealed this hero of the liberal blogosphere to be Armando Lloréns-Sar, a corporate lawyer in Puerto Rico who has represented Wal-Mart and Clorox. Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website, his unmasking sent shockwaves through the Daily Kos community and led Lloréns-Sar to quit the site--and, according to bloggers here, cancel his appearance at the convention, lest his pastime create a conflict for his employers. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to highlight a section, as this is from a third party source for those confused: "Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is incidentally the same as on his TPMCafe profile. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I don't think Armando's affiliation with Daily Kos was listed on his law firm's web site, just like your affiliation with Wikipedia is probably not listed on your firm's web site. If someone managed to connect your Wikipedia handle back to your real-world name and workpace, I don't think you'd want it posted here, if that helps you understand this situation a little better. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. The claim that this article somehow violates WP:BLP is completely without merit, Lloréns-Sar has repeatedly gone on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos. Silensor 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is even one example known where he (Armando himself) went on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos? The sources cited so far seem to be from third parties who had access to the info and revealed it, possibly without realizing that it was supposed to be private. I.e. suppose I interview you on TV as "Silensor" and you give me your real name privately before the taping starts, but then somehow your real name shows up on the TV station's web site--have you gone on the record as being the same Silensor who edits Wikipedia? I'd say you haven't. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Stanford link I included above [5] appears to satisfy this. Conference speakers virtually always supply their own biography, and if he didn't want it used I think he would have said something to them in the last 14 months. The alternative is that Stanford was able to do their own research and come up with that bio back in April 2005, which I think is less likely. Dori 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to be notable enough. bbx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. — Dunc|☺ 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Armando is a notable blogger with a high profile by virtue of his Daily Kos posts and his full name was publicly known on NPR and other major media, in some cases by his own volition. Calling it an attack page is a misrepresentation. Rcade
• Delete. Non-notable outside the context of Daily Kos. I would say merge but there doesn't look like anything here to merge except a single mention in the Daily Kos article that he is one of their contributors. KleenupKrew 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the various arguments of badlydrawnjeff. ScottW 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person is important and meets bio requirements too Yuckfoo 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He was not really a notable blogger on Daily Kos eventhough Daily Kos is a notable blog. He is not neccesarily notable because he used to blog there. Not all former writers for the New York Times or Washington Post are considered notable. Beyond the Daily Kos service he fails to meet the standards listed in WP:BIO. --Strothra 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, barely ekes out notability by association to Daily Kos. Any other notability in media stems from that, not vice versa. KWH 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Delete. Per comments section, it seems like this article was originally created as part of the attempt to "out" this person, and the subsequent events since outing do not confer notability. Also a bit shameful on Wikipedia, I believe, we ought to have learned how to manage these things in a bit more sensitive manner by now. KWH 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, really should speedy, the article barely asserts notability. It says the subject is best known for frequent posting to Daily Kos. Wikipedia is much more popular than Daily Kos, and yet frequently editing Wikipedia doesn't create notability. The article also deliberately includes personal info (the subject's full name), which he does not use in his Daily Kos posts and tried to keep private. It should certainly be omitted from the article on the same grounds under which we omit home addresses and phone numbers and sometimes birthdates even though that info could be found by similar stalking efforts. The situation with Tron is not comparable since Tron is unfortunately no longer a living person, and also because Tron's real name was widely reported in the international press after his grisly and mysterious death. That's much different than someone trying to stay private but having someone slip up on a few obscure occasions. I basically see this article as an attack piece whose main purpose is to out an anonymous blogger who is generally non-notable but who is disliked by a certain crowd that opposes his point of view. So it's a misuse of Wikipedia. Phr (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Posting his personal phone number or other private information would clearly be a breach of WP:BLP. His full name and professional information, now that it has been second-sourced, not so. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all as notable blogger. Also a comment: as long as his real name is verifiable (which appears to be the case here), it should be mentioned. What's outed cannot be outed. –Dicty (T/C) 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Changing my vote to delete and salt the earth in its wake. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia. If I wanted blogdom wankery, I'd go read a blog. –Dicty (T/C) 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see the logical connection between Armando's real name being verifiable and it belonging in the article. Can you explain further? If we can somehow find out and verify his mothers' maiden name and his social security number, should we include those too? Any notability that he has as a blogger is under his blogging name, which is simply Armando. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Not at all. His mother's maiden name and SS # aren't necessary or relevant for a typical biography. A person's real name and occupation are, as WP:BLP clearly states, as long as it's well-sourced by third party sources and doesn't create any issues, which this obviously does not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can say that it "obviously" does not create any issues. The person in question certainly thinks it does as do some other editors here. I personally don't think it does, but WP:BLP states that "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" Maximusveritas 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think it's obvious either. But WP:BLP also says If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Clearly this sequence of events had a major impact on A's notability. As some people claimed, prior to his outing A didn't even appear in the Daily Kos article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  We can reasonably disagree on that, but it's mostly because I don't think this is a borderline case. If we didn't have the TNR and NPR and NRO evidence, I wouldn't be arguing about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict) Verifiability is not a reason for including, merely a criterion. Independently of verifiability, the real name of a notable person is interesting and encyclopedic information, in the sense that the average person looking up Armando in an encyclopedia might expect to find it and might even be interested in this info. His social security number isn't similarly encyclopedic. With regard to keeping names secret, a recent similar case is with the real names of the bandmembers of Lordi. –Dicty (T/C) 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all as a notable blogger, the name was "outed" half a year ago. This controversy is manufactured in the worst possible way. RFerreira 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all per badlydrawnjeff. BaseballBaby 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please locate a secondary source that documents his employer name. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please try to take a more WP:CIVIL tone with those you are in disagreement with. Edit summaries like this are inappropriate and uncalled for. Silensor 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Daily Kos. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Protect for one year to stop a new article from being started. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. There is no urgency to decide if this information is encyclopedic. We will be in a better position to decide a year from now. Do no harm should be our guiding rule. FloNight ^talk 00:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, hatecruft. A stand-in blogger, at a notable political blog was "outed" for something construed to be political hypocracy? Not encyclopedic now, and certainly not encyclopedic in 500 years. WP is not the appropriate venue for silly political games, especially ones involving non-politicians. Ronabop 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Daily Kos. He is not notable in himself, all the assertions of him as "notable" are him as a blogger on Daily Kos. —Centrx→talk • 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per my various comments on article talk page. --CSTAR 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to follow all this, but it appears that it violates, or violated, WP:BLP and WP:NOT EVIL. And how notable is this guy really? Scores of people appear on the radio every day. Herostratus 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Like most bloggers, seems to be an unknown of little distinction. But since we have articles on other bloggers and wiki is not paper, no harm in keeping it. --JJay 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Since it is clear that those who wish to do me harm are numerous at Wikipedia, I withdraw my request for deletion and ask for the following - IF I am so notable a blogger to merit such attention, then where is the discussion of my actual posts? I think the article should discuss what I consider my two most notable blogging issues - opposition to the Bush Administration's torture regime and to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and my posts on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Indeed, as the folks who hate me so have duly noted, my appearances on the radio were wholly related to these two areas of discussion. Since the evidence of my notoriety that supposedly merit this article, relate to my posts on those subjects, then in all fairness they should be part of the article.

In addition, the evidence of my notoriety includes the name Armando Llorens, NOT Armando Llorens-Sar, thus any references to my name should be to my "notable name" - not to my non-notable professional name. Further, my law firm was not mentioned in my "notable appearances and is clearly not of interest to any but those with harmful intnetions. It should be excluded. Similarly, the client list of my firm also was not mentioned in any "notable" appearances and thus that too should be excluded from the article.

Thus, the description of my non-notable personal life should be to my name - as stated in my notable appearances "Armando Llorens" and my private professional life should be described as "an attorney in large corporate law firm." It seems to me that those who perceive these facts as "notable" should have little to complain about with such descriptions. Those with axes to grind of course will object to excluding the names of my children and where they go to school. I hope Wikipedia has the good sense to not let it be the vehicle for vicious person who have harm and hate as their agendas.--Armandoatdailykos 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I must ask one further question. I just checked and saw that Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia. It boggles the mind to believe that I am more notable than Duncan Black. I must again wonder how Duncan Black, once porrayed as a character on the West Wing, is not sufficently notable for his own bio, but somehow I am. I also review the standard for notability and inclusion as a bio at Wikipedia and no one can seriously argue that I qualify. I must insist that the clear inappropriateness of having a separate bio for me is conclusive proof that those who are insisting that it exist are motivated by hatred and the thirst for revenge. I do not believe any honest person can believe that there should be a separate biography for me at all.

I am now more convinced than ever that to include a biography of me in Wikipedia would be a sheer act of malice, a violation of Wikipedia policy and strong evidence that Wikipedia itself jhas flown off the rails. I must imagine that others have been subject to these vicious uses of Wikipedia to cause harm. Frankly, any sincere believer in this project will have a hard time explaining how this can be justified. I urge those of you who believe in Wikipedia to consider the damage you do to the credibility of this project. I can say that in all sincerity it is my view that the sooner Wikipedia collapses from its complete lack of control, the better. This is simply disgraceful.--Armandoatdailykos 09:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Atrios (created April 2004). Dr. Duncan B. Black and Duncan B. Black (redirect created Sept. 30, 2005), and Duncan Black which has a disambiguation link to Atrios. –Dicty (T/C) 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that there is a separate biography of Duncan Black? It seems to me that it means that there is a link to an article about Atrios. My point was that the link to Duncan Black did not stand alone. Obviously, I am less notable than Duncan Black. The minimum would require that a redirect would be the most I would face. Moreover, Duncan Black is a fulltime blogger who now blogs for a living. So, not only is Duncan Black much more notable than me, he is a fulltime blogger who no longer is anonymous. I am a non-paid occasional blogger, unknown to most of the world, who does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements established by Wikipedia, who no longer posts on the front page of daily kos, who was the victim of a concerted vendetta that used as its primary weapon Wikipedia and its extremely lax controls.

I am not sure what your view is on these issues as you expressed none but I think that your information misses my point.--Armandoatdailykos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article Atrios is a biographical sketch of Duncan B. Black (a redirect to the main article). Your initial claim "Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia" is incorrect. Your point in the comment directly above is unclear to me. The pattern in Atrios' biography article is exactly parallel to that of Armando (blogger) (main article) and Armando Lloréns-Sar (a redirect to it). I certainly agree with you that Dr. Black appears to be more well known than you—to illustrate, I was aware of him independently of his Wikipedia biography, whereas I have come to know of you through reading this deletion discussion—but I think the Armando (blogger) article makes a sufficient case for your notability. As to whether your name should be rendered as "Armando Lloréns-Sar" or "Armando Llorens", the issue seems completely pointless to me; and since you're here, I would much rather just ask you what your name is. You say it is the latter– good enough for me! One final thing: I would request you not to impute ulterior motives to any wikipedia editors here (assume good faith, etc.). Politically, I probably agree with you to a great degree (I have not yet found anything to disagree with in your columns on Daily Kos), and I have no reason to wish you any harm. I just don't see why stating your name, especially when it is well sourced, confirmed by you yourself, and especially when your livelihood does not depend on your anonymity, can constitute harm. If there are elements in Armando (blogger) article that are directly harming you or your livelihood, please point them out and I will remove them from the article, or an administrator will remove them by hiding a portion of the article's history such that it is no long publicly accessible. I will now make the changes regarding your name and place of employment that you requested above. (these changes have already been made by others.) –Dicty (T/C) 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Such changes are under heavy dispute at the moment. None of the information he claims is anything that's only available here, and our policies are clear in such regard - "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If we let the subjects decide what's worthy of inclusion, we may as well not do any biographies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

However, the onus is on the person wishing to include information about Armando's place of employment or the name he uses professionally to show why this information is notable. WP is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dicty (T/C) 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page of the article, we've beaten the horse to a bloody, zombified pulp at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the discussion page once before, and have now refreshed my memory of it. I still do not see a proper argument for why Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients is notable information. What I see instead is repeated hamfisted use of WP:BLP to quash dissent and no small amount of bad faith accusations flung to and fro. You will do me a favour if you summarise the arguments for the notability of Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients in a separate section here or on Talk:Armando (blogger), without reference to any earlier argument. –Dicty (T/C) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando's "professional name" has been used by Armando in his appearances associated with Daily Kos at NPR, among others. His law firm helps fill out a full biography of him, which is also cited in a variety of different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. The type of clients he has served helps fill out a full biography of him, also cited in different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. They're notable to be published all over the place, much of it is notable enough to be put out there by other third party places associated with Armando. I'm completely puzzled as to why this is an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points: first, there seems to be a mistake of fact in your comment. The cited NPR interview[6] used the name "Armando Llorens", not "Armando Lloréns-Sar". The sole citation for the latter form of his name is the NRO blog posting (which was cited by Slate). In his comment above, Armando asked that the former be used in the article, and it's a reasonable request as the latter name is not as verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Second, that some fact is notable in other media does not make it ipso facto notable for WP. What is notable in a gossip rag (to furnish an example) is not necessarily notable in an encyclopedia. Armando is a notable blogger, not a notable lawyer. Information about his blogging activities are directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be included in his WP biography. The name of his law firm, the list of clients of said law firm, the brand of suit he prefers wearing while at work, the make and size of his shoes, and the length of his stride are examples of facts that are not directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be left out. By the way, this discussion is off topic in an AfD nomination and should be moved to a relevant talk page. –Dicty (T/C) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with going w/"Llorens" officially, that's not a problem, although I disagree that we HAVE to. And we also disagree on what "makes him notable." Armando has gained additional prominence due to his "outing," all of which is encompassed in what we know about him. Certainly, no one's arguing shoe size or how many grey hairs anyone's given him recently, simply what's known, verifiable, and adds to the entry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now am I to believe that this person is not acting in bad faith. Only if I agree to assume the role of an idiot. Of what significance can it be to this person that my entry use "Armando Llorens" not "Armando Llorens-Sar"? Why the same reason I prefer "Armando Llorens" (the only named used, against my wishes and permission,even in the evidence presented for my supposed acquiescence to my "outing") because I want to distance the entry from my law firm and professional life. Why? Because it is more likely to do me harm if the "Llorens-Sar" is used. And that is exactly why this person wishes to use "Llorens-Sar."

Thus this user is wrong when he says NPR used "Llorens-Sar." This user is wrong when says "his law firm helps fill out a full biography of him." Not one of you would claim that my law firm is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Why pretend this editor is acting in good faith?

This user is wrong when he say that different mediums mentioned my law firm PRIOR to the vindictive efforts to out me, commenced and forwarded right here at Wikipedia. This person is wrong when he says the names of my clients are relevant. He claims to be completely puzzled why there is objection to it. And I am asked to assume the good faith of the editors here? Ridiculous. Please do not insult my intelligence.

Does he want to describe the "type of clients" I represent? How about this descritpion? "Fortune 500 companies." Will that satisfy him? Of course it will not.

My position is clear. The integrity of Wikipedia is clearly going to be reflected by what is done here.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that this discussion is dominated by persons of bad faith. I expect the worst.--Armandoatdailykos 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I claimed or intended to claim that NPR used "Llorens-Sar." If you inferred that, fine, but that's hardly the issue at this point. You accuse people of claiming different mediums presented this information prior to "the vindictive efforts to out" you, although I see no evidence of that. If "Fortune 500" clients is accurate, great, if we can grab a third party source on that (since we have editors who will object to using you as a primary source) we'll be glad to use it. I'm sorry you feel that "this editor" is not acting in good faith - on the contrary, I've largely put my reputation here on the line in defense of the straightforward policies we have here regarding biographies of living people, which I suggest you take a look over sometime. The integrity of Wikipedia is going to be reflected poorly if we bow to the demands of anyone who is upset by a neutral, well-sourced biography of themselves here, and I'm sorry you can't grasp that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion as a biography, at least as I understnad it the following:

"Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion. As well read the rules for biographies of living persons.

Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups).

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
• Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongiong discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)
• Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
• 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. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.
• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements
• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
• Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I simply do not qualify in any sense. I do not k now how anyone, acting in good faith can think I do. You claim to be upholding the ethics of Wikipedia by violating them. It is an absurdity. Indeed, this whole exercise is an absurdity. Any honest person must acknowledge that that the only reason a biography was written about me was because I debunked a Jason Leopold/Wayne Madsen acolyte who, in an act of malicious vindictiveness, wrote a biography about me which has been the subject of this ridiculous charade.

Well, the rest of you can pretend that this is a reasonable discussion in good faith. But let's be clear about this. You are fooling no one. You are bringing disrepute onto Wikipedia.--Armandoatdailykos 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In good faith, you should clearly understand that you meet the second to last one, and many would consider you to qualify under the final one, too. Considering that you meet the second to last, that's when you need to check up on WP:BLP, which is the guideline concerning biographies of living persons. Besides, what you've quoted above "is not intended to be an exclusionary list."

Perhaps someone originally created an article on you because of vindictiveness. I was personally surprised you DIDN'T have an article prior to your supposed "outing." Regardless of what the original intent was, the fact remains that the article now, except for the whitewashing, is a neutral, factual piece, and continues to be with the currently deleted information. It meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about good faith. Jeez. There's 1,225,146 other articles on Wikipedia. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this exchange upsets you so much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is now argued that I qualify as notable under these two rubriks:

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

What noteworthy event would that be? Why my outing by a malicious member of WIKIPEDIA and the revert war that ensued!! This is ridiculous. Thus, in order to make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia one need only write a malicious article about them, start a manufactured scandal and THEN make such person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

That is your entire argument. That, you say, is the Wikipedia ethic. If it is, it is an indictment of Wikipedia.

You say you are putting your reputation on the line in this dispute. I would say you have damaged your reputation here in this matter. And unless you are a simpleton, I can not believe you believe this article merits such attention and such damage for your reputation. You clearly have other motives. Others can play the fool for you. I will not. It is not credible.

You also say I am notable under this standard:

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I have not been the subject of ANY non-trivial works. None. You argue that the National Review hit piece on me is not non-trivial? An article, by the way, about how I was fighting my outing in a WIKIPEDIA article! You argue that the TNR article about the reaction to my OUTING caused by a WIKIPEDIA article is non-trivial!

And you say you are upholding the Wikipedia ethic. For the sake of Wikipedia, I certainly hope not. Because it is about the most unethical course of action I can imagine. Malicious use of Wikipedia to make someone notable as the basis for a wikpedia article. Your ethics boggle the mind.--Armandoatdailykos 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTE, even if such articles were not non-trivial, the involve only one event, my outing at Wikipedia. So even if you, um, "ethic" is the Wikipedia ethic, I still do not meet the notable standard.

Now, what will your next straw man be?--Armandoatdailykos 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you fail to understand how we do things here is no reason to get snippy. Yes, National Review and The New Republic are non-trivial, it may be time to accept that. Furthermore, I've said my piece and you're being unnecessarily nasty, so I'm done spelling it out for you further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I will get snippy when you and others like you continue to campaign to do me harm. As for how you do things here, I did not know you were appointed King of Wikipedia. Rather presumptuous of you don't you think? A number of people are saying that what you suggest is NOT how things are done here.

Finally, the non-trivial requirement is for the story themselves, not for the publication. Moreover, it is my view the the National Review website is very trivial in the main and that TNR is often trivial. Moreover, I doubt very much that either publication would consider the stories written about me or that mention me (the TNR article was NOT about me) as serious.

So, Mr. Objective, what is your NEXT red herring?--Armandoatdailykos 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have no answer for the one event not being sufficient for notability rule. I take it you concede that I am not covered there. so you are left with the argument that I am a"[p]erson achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - the newsworthy event being my malicious outing by a Wikipedia article. That is the ethic you are left to defend.

Well done.--Armandoatdailykos 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for rational end to the fighting

Armando, do you disagree with the article as it currently stands? If so, please indicate which parts you disagree with. (I am not promising to edit the article according to your tastes, but merely would like a clear enumeration of the currently controversial parts.) If not, there is no further need to continue fighting or accusing "WIKIPEDIA" of trying to harm you.

If you want to discuss the content of the article further, please do it in Talk:Armando (blogger). If you want to continue fighting with User:Badlydrawnjeff, please do it in a different venue (eg. User talk:Badlydrawnjeff).

This page has a single purpose — to decide whether an article on you should be included in WP or not. Your argument that you are not notable has been recorded and will be considered in the final evaluation. –Dicty (T/C) 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With due respect Dicty, I am not through presenting my argument, but this will be my final points. The guidelines for biographies of livin g persons states, in pertinent part:

"editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons with these key areas in mind:

   * The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

I think the INCLUSION of a separate biography about me violates each of these guidelines. We must always start from the most significant fact - the original article about was undisputedly maicious, written by the banned dkosser and Leopold/Madsen acolyte jiggy flunknut. This is so because it was a verbatim copy of his diary at daily kos which led to his banning. He posted that diary because I debunked his article based on some delusional reporting by Madsen and Leopold. It was without question a malicious use of Wikipedia. This abuse of Wikipedia to harm me led to the NRO article, which led to my alleged notability. When considering whether this article should be deleted, the misuse of Wikipedia as the genesis of my alleged notability should be central to your decision. To allow this article is to invite similar malicious use of Wikipedia to do harm. In my opinion, absent strong reasons, there should be a strong presumption to delete.

The guideline further state:

"Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."

This article is in clear contradiction to this policy.

. . . Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

I repeat "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to b e the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating clams about people's lives." This is EXACTLY what Wikipedia has been in this situation. To further harm me by including this article is to make a mockery of that stated policy.

The guidelines further state:

"Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

That is exactly what happened here. This article rewards that behavior.

You have read my further arguments made previously.

I object to all articles about me that relate to my personal and professional life and include my real name.

I especially object to the inclusion of the name of my law firm, the name I use professionally, and the names of my clients.

I especially object to the article entry Armando Llorens-Sar.

As I am sure my objections will not be agreed to, I will formally withdraw my objection to the article titled Armando (Blogger) as it is written today. Any changes will of course be objected to by me.

I ask that all references to Armando Llorens-Sar be removed from Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my views of this matter.

I now retire from the field.--Armandoatdailykos 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reintrude but I must object to this requrst for comment posted by Jeff:

"* Armando (blogger) - is using the name of an "outed" blogger a violation of WP:BLP? As the blogger is aprogressive one at a leading site, and has had relevant information published clearly in multiple areas that fulfill the various requirements of WP:BLP's standards, specifically "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it," even if some editors believe that including it - regardless of that prior quote - "does harm." The more input, the better, this is a policy issue, not a political one. --14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)"

This request for comment is violative of the requirement that they be presented neutrally. I request it be retracted or deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 05:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Only articles need be presented neutrally. Discussions need not be. (I actually think that a redirect to Daily Kos is appropriate, provided a reasonable amount of information is included there. You, though, are out of line.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Rubin, but the guidleines for Request for Comments clearly state that request for comments must be presented neutrally. I thought you were an old Wikipedia hand.--Armandoatdailykos 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And Mr. Rubin, your comment that I am out of line is, well, out of line. Particularly since you are clearly in error here and all said was that Jeff violated the express Wikipedia guideline, which he did. In shirt Mr. Rubin, your slip is showing. Now, you can safely say I was out og line.--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC's should be presented neutrally. It compromises the comments if the arguments of one side are presented in the RFC and the arguments of the other are expressed only on the talk page by giving undue weight to the arguments of the side that filed the RFC. As such, I have edited the request, but note that the three users who commented on the AFD post the RFC, one an administrator, all voted delete or merge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there were any neutrality issues with the RFC, but if you're going to change them, don't eliminate major parts of the conflict. The RFC, for the record, ahs to do with the ARTICLE, not the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the RfC. It's not mentioned on the article talk page, as it should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned, but not pointed to (that points to the main RfC page, rather than /Politics), as of a few minutes ago, anyway. It's still irrelevant to the AfD. (Looking back over Armando's rant, it does refer to the RfC. My apologies for not seeing it, but it was badly written. If his blog writings are as bad as this, I think I'd go back to delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur:

They are much much worse. I think you should be counted as voting to delete the article. Thank you.--Armandoatdailykos 16:29, 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 all. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball

Also nominating:

Legend Of The Rainbow Mist! Old Man Henzo of Ruluka Island

Where The Island's Treasure Lies! Zenny Pirates Full Charge!

How's That for Profit? Money Lender Zenny's Ambition!

Infamous Pirate Hunter! The Wandering Swordsman,Zoro

The Navigator's Mutiny! For A Unwavering Dream!

The First Patient! Anecdote Of The Rumble Ball

Inherited Recipe! Sanji, The Curry Expert

Zenny Lives On Goat Island And There's A Pirate Ship On His Mountain!

These articles were nominated two months ago (previous AFD). The result was no consensus. Everyone who suggested Keep said strong cleanup is needed. Other than adding/removing tags, only one of the articles has been touched. (I am NOT nominating that one here - that article has been cleaned up as to be borderline usable ... not spectacular, but usable.)

The opinions in the original AFD were 3 keeps, 3 merges, and 4 deletes, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. BigDT 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep Can anyone provide per-episode references for these articles (in any language)? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no one's really done anything to any of these articles since the last AfD, and Wikipedia really isn't the place for episode synopses. --Coredesat 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom Bwithh 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, after all we have episode guides for the Simpsons, South Park, Buffy, and many others, so why not one for One Piece? Also, if no one else is willing to, I'll gladly clean-up the articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Simpsons, South Park, etc. are all highly popular shows watched by tens of millions of people every week. I don't know that there is a comparison. BigDT 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • One Piece is a very popular anime in Japan, and gaining popularity in America as well. Also, if I remember correctly, it was ranked the sixth most popular animated series in Japan [7], as according to TV Asashi (in fact, it seems that globally One Piece is more popular than shows such as Simpsons and South Park, due to the fact that they have a lot of American-related cultural humor that people of other nationalities have a hard time of understanding).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are there any English-language reviews, news articles, etc, about the TV shows? As it stands now, everything is one person's view and, because these articles relate to the Japanese language version, which, according to One Piece is substantially different from the English language version, most en Wikipedians have no capability of verifying anything. List of One Piece episodes has a list of 271 Japanese episodes and 78 English episodes. Do we really need 271 articles about episodes about a TV show that is in another language? BigDT 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per TBC ikh (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete If this show isn't popular enough that any of its fans were willing to start cleaning the first time around, I find it unlikely the episodes listed will make much progress. GassyGuy 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Nobody did any cleanup after the last AFD and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom; nothing more than context-free (and thus incomprehensible) episode summaries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - True, it is a well-known and popular Anime. True, we have episode guides for other shows. However, these articles are very poorly written and desperately need to be brought up to standards. Aren't there Anime templates out there that could help with the context (like that which is found on the main One Piece article)? These articles also need to be wikified to interconnect with the main article (if it really comes down to it, I'll take care of that part, but someone needs to seriously copyedit first and I don't know the series well enough). אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, that was the condition under which they were kept last time and nothing has been done. BigDT 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm completely aware of that. Unless we can get someone to actually commit to cleaning them up and checking sources, the future of these articles seems rather brief. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Someone seems to always volunteer and rarely follows through, as obvious by the relisting of all but one. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all asper nom --Splette ^Talk 14:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh, delete all. These are so bad that almost anyone could read them in their entirety and not gain a clue as to what they are about. TV episode synopses do not belong here. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - I'm not a fan of having articles on a per episode basis, but these are very bad. After looking at a couple of them, I still had no idea what TV show this was. Wickethewok 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm currently cleaning up the articles. So far I've added an introduction, external links, a template, and stub tags. If any one else wants to help, please feel free to do so.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per TBC, although I suggest it might be better to create one article for each season/series to help comprehension per Wickenthewok. hateless 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete if no-one has bothered to make them presentable. —Xyrael _{/ 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Artw 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Fancruft. KleenupKrew 21:10, 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) 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bettws RFC, Newport

came to light working on dead-end articles - self-promotional article;limited/no appreciable value Cain Mosni 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Ex nihil 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Brad101 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable rugby club. Only 2 Google results, both of which are from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC above. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Xyrael _{/ 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not noteable -- Agathoclea 22:30, 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) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spongebong Hemppants

Parody of SpongeBob SquarePants of unknown provenance and little notability. —tregoweth (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Amusing, but non-notable. Delete. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• It seems to be a relatively popular internet meme with 12,000 google hits. It doesn't really seem that notable though. Weak delete -- Where 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Include it as a external link on the regular SpongeBob page if necessary, but no way on own article Bwithh 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at least merge and redirect to spongebob. Pascal.Tesson 05:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• The parody was a canceled segment of VH1's ILL-ustrated show, due to possible legal actions from Viacom, owner of SpongeBob SquarePants. ILL-ustrated may be notable, but this segment by itself is not, thus delete.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Doesn't Viacom own VH1 too? —tregoweth (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 'I don't think so, since Viacom was seperated into two different companies a few years ago...--TBCTaLk?!? 01:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge - compress it into a few lines on the genuine Squarepants trivia section. Anand^(talk) 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. WarpstarRider 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Where's comments. —Xyrael _{/ 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:12, 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) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It sounds free

Insufficient useage to justify an article or establish notability. BlueValour 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NEO --DarkAudit 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice per above. Jammo (SM247) 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely. --Argitoth 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no merit, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no merit - check the edit history - self authored/self-promotion. Amusing that the article's author should agree. Cain Mosni 02:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adios. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• It sounds deletable GassyGuy 05:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Pascal.Tesson 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like the self-promotion. "famous, well-known, talented, and respected user" who is incidentally the article creator's username. Hbdragon88 08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to KVRaudio - that article is in need of content and improvement. Ace of Risk 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As per above. fails WP:NEO. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, worst idea for an article ever? Recury 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, jargon lacking context. Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dream on. -- ^{Jack Blueberry (t)}⁄_(c) •  17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanineo. --DaveG12345 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Xyrael _{/ 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable. Green caterpillar 23:53, 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 Delete by DaGizza. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bexhill high school

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; a patent schoolkid prank Cain Mosni 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - have marked as such. BlueValour 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as prank. --DarkAudit 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat 02:36, 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 redirect'Blnguyen' | rant-line 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barron Hilton II

Top marks for conciseness and accuracy but I can't establish any notability of this guy in his own right. BlueValour 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability, and being a relative of a notable person doesn't make someone notable. Only 26 unique Google hits. The article has almost no context or content. --Coredesat 02:39, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Preference Items

Out of context. Someones unfinished project. Can't find proper merge. Brad101 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, smacks of WP:OR, vandal magnet. Nothing worth merging. --Coredesat 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Coredescat. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Coredescat.Pascal.Tesson 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just a quotation from the IR website. If it contained more information I would suggest merging with Tax_in_the_UK, but this wouldn't add anything. --Ladybirdintheuk 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to alternative minimum tax. JChap 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as just a quotation, per above. —Xyrael _{/ 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:14, 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 Redirect Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pride Rock

This is the place where The Lion King movies and books take place. I don't see why the the world needs its own article outside of the main pages The Lion King, The Lion King II: Simba's Pride and The Lion King 1½ . Also, this article might fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Starionwolf 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Lion King. This article really can't stand on its own: "In The Lion King and in The Lion King 1½ the rock looks the same but in Simba's Pride it is different" says it all. --Coredesat 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above; no lone merit, but a useful search term Cain Mosni 03:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: According to the page history, the article was originally a #REDIRECT to The Lion King. Another editor added the text and screenshot. --Starionwolf 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as used to be. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Coredesat. Tevildo 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. —Xyrael _{/ 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to anywhere but here. Zos 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all. Ardenn 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: someone will need to deal with the image PrideRock.jpg if an administrator edits the page to a redirect. Cheers --Starionwolf 04:24, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlueC

Non notable website, Alexa in the 3 millions. Crystallina 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --ColourBurst 02:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Phileas 04:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all signs point to spam. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Xyrael _{/ 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all signs point to spam and the site is extremely unnotable. --Richhoncho 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ultra-stub, possible redirect, but NN. Zos 03:44, 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 Delete, nn group with no assertion of notability Deizio talk 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trio-Sanity

Fails WP:NN. Only 3 relevant google hits, one of wich is his deviantART page, and the other two are in German. The section on Unreleased Titles, along with google results lead me to believe this is not real, and only exists in the author's mind --BennyD 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fictional computer games? What next? Phileas 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and WP:NFT - Motor (talk) 11:37, 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) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Ontology

Delete. It reads like an advertisement. There are no non-primary or otherwise credible sources cited. The Google, it turns up a lot of sites associated to the author of the idea, or that otherwise seek to make money off it. There's only 521 results anyways, which is peanuts. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I prodded this previously, but it was recreated after the prod. The recreation counts as contesting the prod. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This sounds like a typical, academic tempest in a teapot. It's still basically in the realm of a neologism and therefore not (yet) suitable for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't for cutting edge things or fly-by-night fads. Interlingua ^talk 04:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope I can be forgiven for momentarily confusing this with General Semantics... But yeah, definitely non-notable—no references except for two (self-published?) books by CO's creator. --zenohockey 05:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This is now on the Antiwikipedia at [[8]] where we fully welcome non-notable neologisms and advertisements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.192.139 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Obscure WP:NEO. --DaveG12345 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neo —Xyrael 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ontology. Zos 03:46, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and patriotism

Looks like a diatribe to me. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, cites no sources, I say delete GabrielF 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOV --BennyD 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete TXP as per nom—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cain Mosni (talk • contribs)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOV. Yep, it's a diatribe. --DarkAudit 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like original research and is definitely POV. ---Charles 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Phileas 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Total OR and POV. Interlingua ^talk 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've got a feeling this will be a short debate. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a clear case of WP:OR. Gwernol 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or overhaul. Make a redirect to separation of church and state or other pertinent topic, or rework into guideline-compliant article. knoodelhed 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Unlikely to be a search term. --Coredesat 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, and suggest redirect to Christianity and politics. Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research.--Isotope23 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is now on the Antiwikipedia at [[9]] where we fully welcome point of view diatribes and give them safe haven. 67.78.192.139 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for OR and POV--128.115.27.10 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR failure. --DaveG12345 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-encyclopedia content. —Xyrael 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-fest. Nothing salvagable. JChap 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Preserve I find this article to offer some views which I do not normally read. If this is not a NPOV, we should instead set up a criticism section in the article to balance up the non-NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.109.185 (talk • contribs) .

• Two POV's don't make an NPOV. Wikipedia is not a debate club. Fan1967 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't try to misunderstand comments. Two well-worded, dignified and objective POV's do make an NPOV. It is necessary to present different sides of an argument in order to establish nuetrality. I do not in any way support this article, but I also do not in any way support ignoring societal consensus. AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that this is not an encyclopedic article, it is merely a person's opinion, an essay. Balancing it with an opposing essay would still not constitute an NPOV article, it would merely create a debate. There is a potential for an article on this issue, but it would have to be encyclopedic, i.e. here are the arguments of this school of thought, or this sect, or this notable philospoher or theologian. Fan1967 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. AdamBiswanger1 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagreed. Wikipedia is not your normal physical encyclopedia, with limits on the number of possible articles. This article just takes so little space on the server. We should try to expand Wikipedia to include all school of thoughts, even wild ideas. If you disagree with the article, you can always write to explain why is it unacceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.127.126 (talk • contribs)

• That's not an article; that's an essay. Everyone just posting their personal opinions is a forum or a blog, not an encyclopedia. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Fan1967 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Certainly Wikipedia is not a conventional hard-copy encyclopaedia. It is, nevertheless an encyclopaedia. It is for articles on factual knowledge. It is not a medium for debate or social discourse. The correct way forward, if this were the policy of a notable group would be to document the group and its policies, not to expound the argument itself. As it stands it is, as has been noted more than once already, simply a political essay. Whether one wishes to read it, or perhaps even agrees with it is of no relevance. Cain Mosni 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-encyclopedic on so many levels. Penelope D 03:50, 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 wasSpeedy delete a7 group (gang)/a3 not much context.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Sanity Began

Fails WP:NFT, WP:NN. I wasn't sure if this should be a speedy delete or a regular AfD --BennyD 02:56, 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 delete: A7: Myspace band by Geogre (who forgot to close the AfD - Viridae 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] The Horrifics

Website advert BlueValour 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per norm --BennyD 03:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and so tagged, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete although now that it's tagged I guess it's not really necessary. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No claim of notability. Interlingua ^talk 04:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy or if not, delete, per above ikh (talk) 04:21, 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) 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britxbox

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; very pretty, nicely laid out, but no interlinks with the rest of WP and looks (from history) like shameless self-promotion. Cain Mosni 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable, does not satisfy WP:WEB. For example, tried to Google "Britxbox", and while I got 61,600 results, Google displayed only 15 of them, saying that the rest are "very similar" [10]. ikh (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete page created and developed by users with little or no other edits, further indication of spam. Pascal.Tesson 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We have 4290 registered users - tempted to keep but it reads like an ad.--Andeh 10:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an ad. If you read the history, and compare it with the content, it looks suspciously like the main contributor is the guy engaged to perform PR duties... Cain Mosni 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as ad, but gah arn't those links all the way through annoying?! —Xyrael 21:20, 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) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca Hotel

I'm trying to go through hotel pages to remove spam and un-notable entries. This luxury hotel in New York is relatively new and has no apparent history. The article was created by an anonymous user who has a total of 3 edits, all pimping HKHotels, which I am also nominating. The Library Hotel (page started by the same user) at least has a bit of interest, the two I'm nominating are essentially spam and have not been edited since their creation apart from cosmetic edits. Pascal.Tesson 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I agree with your points but say weak here because if some editors add more info to this on the history of the buidling or the significance of the architecture, I'd change and urge a keep. Perhaps the AfD tag will push the creator to do something with this. Interlingua ^talk 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, though the hotel is a five star hotel and though it does have a large amount of Google results [11], I can't find any other evidence of notability--TBCTaLk?!? 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above. --Coredesat 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The google search is a bit misleading as it includes other hotels with the same name, and hotels in Casablanca. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - In general, hotels are not inherently notable. No objection to recreating this if it is found to be otherwise noteworthy. Wickethewok 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Interlingua. ---Charles 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both per Wickethewok. --DaveG12345 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above comments. —Xyrael 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: no claim to notability. Fram 12:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If HKHotels don't care...--Richhoncho 21:18, 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. Gwernol 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trey 3: The Search for Trey 2

Prank page DarkAudit 03:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I marked this for speedy deletion as vandalism because this is unquestionably a hoax. It gets zero hits on Google. Jesse Viviano 03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Originally tagged as speedy delete for nonsense, but was removed by author. --DarkAudit 03:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, being a hoax does not qualify for a speedy deletion. Nonsense, also reallly doesn't apply since it's apparent what it's about. It is a hoax, so deletion is necessary unless proved otherwise. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:21, 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: Redirect to Dungeon Siege. —Centrx→talk • 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mageworld

This is a fanmade modification and addition to the computer game Dungeon Siege I already merged the text from Mageworld to Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld. I'm not sure whether to create a redirect page, to merge the text from Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld back to Mageworld or to delete Mageworld. Starionwolf 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. I don't think that the word "Mageworld" is likely to be used outside the gaming context. Tevildo 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. --DaveG12345 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. —Xyrael 21:21, 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) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony De Ieso

Sounds very much like a hoax. DarkAudit 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If it sounds like a hoax, smells like a hoax, and is very obviously a hoax... -- Kicking222 03:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More of a joke than a hoax, but definitely should be deleted. Seems to contain a subtle reference to Strega Nona, which made me smile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but not before sending it to BJAODN. Phileas 04:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cute. Danny Lilithborne 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like a hoax? Now DarkAudit is just being polite. Pascal.Tesson 05:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator. Silensor 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. --DaveG12345 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete amusing but obviously a hoax. —Xyrael 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• HEY DOODS THIS IS NOT A HOAX, I KNOW THIS GUY AND HE HAS BROUGHT THIS SPORT INTO OUR HEARTS AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS ARTICLE TO BE DELETED. IT IS SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO THE COMMON SPORTS OF AUSTRALIA...PLEASE...TRY IT SOME DAY AND YOU WILL ALSO SEE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 June 2006
• Delete since this fails WP:HOAX. Yamaguchi先生 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete hoax. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless ESPN gets really desperate for programming. NawlinWiki 01:54, 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 delete per A7 by Fang Aili. --Coredesat talk 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cole (band)

Joke article, pure fiction and nonsense

• Delete - agree with nom, found nothing to support it. ikh (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - whatever else certainly non-notable! BlueValour 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete juvenile hoax. Danny Lilithborne 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom doesn't fit WP:MUSIC Woldo 08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - although Michael Cole being a racist and bigot would be an amusing turn of events. --- Lid 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. So Here You Ain't. --DaveG12345 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calaschysm 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I did get a chuckle out of it, but this is completely worthless. 71.195.44.152 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. McPhail 16:56, 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) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franklyn Gottbetter

Long list of film credits, but all minor - best ones are producer of one unknown film, first assistant director (once), and editor of the 1992 Oscars. Not notable in my opinion.NawlinWiki 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Credits as an assistant director are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 03:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not to mention the fact that, without even searching IMDb, I can tell that this page is just a copy-and-paste job from said site. -- Kicking222 04:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. --Coredesat 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Not to mention "additional second second assistant director". Wow. --DaveG12345 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE, wow, it is obvious that none of you have worked on a movie or tv set. first assistant director is a HUGE and POWERFUL position. It is not something to be laughed at. And doesnt having a page on IMDB warrant a page on wikipedia? do a google search, he will show up. Olayak
  • Note The above comment is by the creator of the article in question. And a first asst. director may well be powerful on a movie set, but it doesn't mean that person is notable to the general public. NawlinWiki 20:24, 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) 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consilient

Corporate self-promotion (see creator's username) NawlinWiki 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete blatant advertising --BennyD
• Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. Only 38 relevant Google results.--TBCTaLk?!? 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, ad. --Coredesat 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TaLk?!?. Lazy copy-paste job. --DaveG12345 21:18, 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) 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Cricket Club

Not-notable (zero Google hits); do not play in a national league. BlueValour 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising for non notable team. TheRingess 03:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ikh (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement for a non-notable team. --Coredesat 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trivial vanispamvertisement. --DaveG12345 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn. - Longhair 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Social indoor cricket club of no consequence in Australian or South Australian cricket. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable Kevin 08:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a social club in a league which only covers a certain area in Adelaide. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. In a league of their own, so to speak. --Richhoncho 13:15, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Hoban High School

Failed Speedy delete. (This is not an 'All schools are notable versus school cruft' debate!) The problem that this 'article' produces is a common one. Obviously written by a student, it is barely literate. Now it could be kept on the basis that it might be cleaned up and expanded (though it is improbable that it will); OTOH do we want this sort of low grade stuff hanging around in a serious encyclopaedia? There are loads of these being produced so I think we need a proper discussion as to what to do. BlueValour 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, without prejudice, unless it is properly rewritten by the time this AfD nomination closes. Agree with nom, the subject is possibly encyclopedic, but the contents is definitely not; since there are likely nearly no real editors with knowledge of this school, there is no point in having this sort of stuff here. ikh (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep has been cleaned up; appears to be notable. ikh (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or else put in some real information that someone can actually use. --BennyD 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no claims of notability what-so-ever. --Eivind^t@c 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would have suggested "prod"ing it first in case someone actually wanted to fic it up, but oh well. Viridae 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context, no claims of notability. --Coredesat 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, obviously. At least one notable former pupil, and the article is bound to have scope for expansion. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, claims of all high schools being notable are empty and without logical basis. No claims of notability made, and none found beyond once having a current sportsman as a pupil. - Motor (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for pretty much all the reasons given by the nomionator. These sorts of articles are beginning to become a problem Ydam 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Motor. I've always been against the whole "high schools are all notable" mode of thought. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it was badly written, it looks like it has now been cleaned up. I have no objection to articles with interest only to a minority, as long as they don't violate policy. David L Rattigan 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. Nationalparks 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have wikified and updated the article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cleaned up and some notable things mentioned. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article has been cleaned up and is now worth keeping. Gwernol 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete despite the rewrite. Pascal.Tesson 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks fine now. Honbicot 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The first time I visited Wikipedia I looked up my school. Then I clicked on one of the links to an alumnus and amended it (this was long before I had an account). If there had been no article about the school I might never have visited Wikipedia again. Golfcam 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some work has been done and it looks fine now. At least a couple of notable things mentioned.--MichaelMaggs 17:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Problem solved. Olborne 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you come across more of these, best idea is to PROD it and add a {{cleanup-school}} tag so those interesting in maintaing school articles become aware of it and may clean it up.--Isotope23 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - an excellent outcome. Isotope23's PROD suggestion is one that I will implement. BlueValour 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per above works for me. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In the future some cleanup template variant should do. Silensor 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I really am voting to keep a school article. It's better now and seems to be more notable than the other schools I've voted to delete. --Coredesat talk 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep high school articles should be kept.--Konstable 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think efforts would be better spent cleaning these articles up than nominating them for deletion.--Konstable 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, [12]. Nationalparks 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• keep please we should be expanding instead not erasing Yuckfoo 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is better than before. --TruthbringerToronto 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Admin-Speedy Keep - the rubbish that was there before has gone and this article has been cleanedup sufficiently for it to be encyclopaedic. I therefore withdraw the nomination. BlueValour 02:46, 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 delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grecian Sands Hotel

Random hotel in Cyprus[13]. Article has not had a single edit since its creation (except two categorisations). Utter non-notability. Pascal.Tesson 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NN --BennyD 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Does the fact that it's a four-star facility count for anything? --BDD 06:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it should. There are zillions of 4 star hotels out there. In fact, any commercial booking site will give you at least 50 4-star hotels in Cyprus alone. Pascal.Tesson 06:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless some actual evidence of notability -- or even evidence of four stars (who issued them?) surfaces. --Calton | Talk 07:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though there does seem to be a lot of Google results [14], the hotel doesn't seem to have any evidence of notability--TBCTaLk?!? 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note however that 19000 google hits for a commercial hotel listed on hotel-booking sites is not that much.Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable hotel. --Coredesat 09:00, 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, author request Mak (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Chadwick

This page is about a film which is due to be released in 2009, only on the internet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source is a youtube video link, which is broken, and Urban dictionary, which is not an acceptable source, so it is Unverified. It is also most likely a hoax. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the YouTube link By the way this is one of the only unfinished films with ANY external links Keep in mind theres no offecial page because it's an UNFINISHED film

Its an UNFINISHED film. Go to the unfinished films category and take a loop at the films there. It's no more strange than any other films in this category. Its also a childrens movie so don't expect it to be completly serious. I would like the EXACT reason why this article is for deleation so I can edit it so it will agree with the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheehanmds (talk • contribs)

The exact policies which it fails are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mak (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

well I added the link for the Vision Films offecial website, the independent film company creating the film AND a fan-made website which by the way shows 700 hits. Now would a fake film really have 700 fans?

dont you have anything better to do than crush peoples dreams of creating a film to make kids happy?

• I mean no disrespect to sheehanmds, and I don't intend to demean his project in any way, but even if the info in the article was verifiable, and even if the film was already released, it would still be (as far as WP is concerned) non-notable. As the article is also obviously vanity, I think it's a dead-on candidate for a vote of userfy and delete. -- Kicking222 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this page was already killed via VfD (now AfD, of course) a couple of months ago (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lady_Chadwick), so is it speedyable as a repost? -- Kicking222 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Danny Lilithborne 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, period/full stop. Massive crystal-ball violation, for something that doesn't seem likely to be eligible for an article even if it were made. No userfication: user's only contributions have concerned this article, and I'D like to see some veidence of general contribution before suggesting an end-run around inclusion standards. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ahh fine u guys i'll delete it if its that big of a deal//

But don't worry as soon as we finish the film and get it out there this page is goin back up//

And u guys better go see LC once its out

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to Lissa Explains it All as the end article survived AfD this year - Peripitus (Talk) 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEIA

Non-notable. (Note; listing on behalf of User:129.44.99.248 who gave his/her reason here but did not list AfD properly.) -Big Smooth 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lissa Explains it All --TBCTaLk?!? 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lissa Explains it All, though this may be a search term for other articles (such as a Star Wars-related article) - if it is, delete it. --Coredesat 09:02, 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 Redirect to The Libertines - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Dufour

Non-notable musician. He did play drums for a notable band, The Libertines, before they became successful, but I think that information is adequately covered in the band article and a separate one is not justified here. ("Paul Dufour" drummer) gets 65 Google hits. PROD tag was removed by original author. -Big Smooth 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• No vote yet because, as much as I hate the argument to keep things based on a multitude of like arguments, it is hard to vote delete when I know such articles as Andy White (drummer) and the lot seem to go unchallenged. GassyGuy 05:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note that White did actually play on a record (according to his article), though. I'm sure you have other examples you could cite, and I know that as you say you're not fond on using a "like" argument, but there is a difference, since Dufour never actually played on a Libs record, leaving before they were signed to Rough Trade. I can't see that an article of this length on him is in any way worthwhile, since he hasn't contributed to a notable recording - but I can see that people might possibly search for him, so I think he's worth a mention in the main Libs article and a redirect from his name. Seb Patrick 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll buy that reasoning. Redirect per Seb. GassyGuy 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Seb Patrick. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --DaveG12345 19:43, 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 Merge to AMC Gremlin, AMC AMX, AMC Hornet, AMC Javelin, AMC Matador, and AMC Ambassador and delete. Source article is actually List of 1971 American Motors automobiles after the move. I provided a text of the article history in the talk page of each article, so that should satisfy the GFDL attribution requirements. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1971 American Motors Specifications

This is just a list that can be incorporated into other articles, I see no reason why this should be an article of its own. --ApolloBoy 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Original author asked for merge if needed. --Brad101 06:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Coredesat 09:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The AMC article is much too long to put this in, nor duplicated after every car. This is a resource that adds to the content of the WP, I cannot believe how much stuff you folks are willing to delete becaues it does not fit somebody's idea of an article, can you quote chapter and verse that tables such as the Periodic Table have no place in the WP. I believe the guideline is that if there is useful information, and it can be edited to be correct that you should edit or change, rather than delete it. Otherwise it will have to be placed outside the WP on a private web page, which can disappear. What you advocate is NOT deletion, but putting somewhere else. You are free to do that, what you suggest is against the spirit of WP.--Wiarthurhu 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to the following any unduplicated/useful info:

AMC Gremlin

AMC AMX

AMC Hornet

AMC Javelin

AMC Matador

AMC Ambassador

then Delete. Otherwise an arbitrary list of virtually zero use. --DaveG12345 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, don't you think a table like this is useful? what a about a table comparing different fighter planes? That would be good too. Sheeeesh. Just more people having a blast knocking down other people's sandcastles. impossible that this is of zero use, or the original popular mechanics article would not have included this same information. A listing of cars without specs is also of use. --Wiarthurhu 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A listing of specs belongs in an article, not as an article. --ApolloBoy 01:30, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of books for copy editors

Can't possibly be NPOV. --zenohockey 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A simple bibliography, not worth the electrons to hold. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOV. Possibly fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think this was meant to be "recommended reading" or such - I think it was just meant to be a compilation of works that copyeditors typically have on their desk. I could do the same thing for my field, technical writing. Anyone who is in the field knows that there are certain books you HAVE to have on your desk. That being said, the article needs to be sourced and have some prose written to go with it. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - These tools don't seem to be any different than any other professional writer's. Maybe merge/redirect to a list of English resources or something? Wickethewok 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. The list of reference books is different among disciplines. For example, most of those books are hopelessly out of scope for someone in my field - I have the Chicago Manual but most of my other references are specialized for technical writers. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This bibliography may be useful in terms of copy editing (which links to it), but I'm not sure it passes Wikipedia:List#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. It has no stated rationale for inclusion - for example, criteria on the notability of the books to be included, as determined by some reliable third party source. "Have to have them on your desk" is fine - as long as someone reliable has said that, and determined what those books are. Also, as it stands, the list lacks the ISBN and author information that might make it actually useful. But its arbitrary nature is the main problem IMO. --DaveG12345 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if precedent supports that. There was a list of movies Roger Ebert deemed the worst ever that was deleted as (if I recall correctly) copyvio—even though there was evidence that he actually helped edit the article. Moral: If the list is written by someone whose opinions are objectively important (in this case, say, the editor of the AP stylebook), it should go in "External links." Otherwise, remove it. --zenohockey 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• If that's the case, Delete. POV list. --DaveG12345 20:46, 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) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apjax

'Apjax' doesn't seem to exist as a programming language or technique. There are 41 results from a Google search; most of them are references to fluid mechanics or the Dutch language -- nothing about AJAX and PHP, as is claimed by the article. Seems to have been made up. Certainly not notable. -- ArglebargleIV 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX as a made-up programming language. --Coredesat 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I notified the author of the AfD listing and asked them to reference the article or at least provide some means of verifying the article. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm, I guess I should have done that myself. Thanks, and I'll remember for next time. -- ArglebargleIV 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, no verifiable notability (and there seems to be none available), possible vanity project and/or crystal balling. --DaveG12345 20:13, 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) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediajolt

Delete advert for a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- nn. - Longhair 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 381 Google results [15].--TBCTaLk?!? 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clear ad. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, company only formed in April 2006. --DaveG12345 20:17, 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) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Non-Stop Teenage Wrestling

This page is non-notable as it is a backyard promotion. Normy132 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable wrestling promotion. Only 27 Google results [16].--TBCTaLk?!? 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam nonsense/nn.--Andeh 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 20:19, 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) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOPGUN Navy Strike Fighter Tactics - game

Hmm let's see, little content; advert. I find all the good ones :) Brad101 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFT and WP:ADS, non-notable game. Only 643 Google results [17]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Coredesat 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not one mention of the article title text in the article. Impressive. --DaveG12345 20:21, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roma and Sinti

This one's a bit of an odd one - both Roma and Sinti have their own articles, and there's nothing here which couldn't be in those articles. But lots of things link to this page. Merge would be the best option, but which to? And is it worth keeping this as a redirect afterwards since it's just as easy for the other articles to have "[[Roma]] and [[Sinti]]" as "[[Roma and Sinti]]"? Grutness...wha? 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that "Gypsy" may be referring to either one. In the past, the article was a disambiguation, which I thought was strange, because the two were not ambiguous. I say, delete this, point any "Gypsy" references to Roma and include a note at the top, "Gypsy redirects here, for Sinti, see Sinti. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crzrussian's suggestion. --TBCTaLk?!? 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remark. The given recommendations will not work as such. First, for "[[Roma]]" above read "[[Roma people]]"; the page Roma is a disambiguation page. There is an article Gypsy which does not redirect to Roma people, so the proposed top note would not work. It would have made sense if Gypsy was a redirect page to Roma and Sinti, but it is not. A meaningful top note is "Roma and Sinti redirects here", but then this page should become a redirect page, and not be deleted. Many articles already have two links "[[Roma people|Roma]] and [[Sinti]]". If I understand the situation, the PC "Roma and Sinti" instead of just "Roma" is used because some Sinti groups object to being classified as Roma, not because they aren't Roma people by any objective criterion. If "Roma and Sinti" is not more than PC speak for Roma people, then it should either be linked as [[Roma people|Roma and Sinti]], whereupon this page can be deleted, or be made into a redirect page to Roma people. It is not a service to the reader if it is replaced by a pair of links. --Lambiam^Talk 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What I mean is, most of the links are like these: [[Roma and Sinti|Roma]], [[Roma and Sinti|Gypsy]]. When Gypsy or Roma is said in an article, the convention seems to have developed to link to Roma and Sinti because either or both may be meant. Let the disclaimer at the top of Roma people say something like "This is the main article about people commonly known as "Gypsies", there's also Sinti." Or something like it. I dunno... - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per CrzRussian. --Coredesat 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roma people and add to top of latter "See also: Sinti". --DaveG12345 20:41, 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. A redirect wouldn't be amiss either. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Presidents of the United States

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also seems like an abridged, redundant version of List of Presidents of the United States. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per resolution of the image gallery discussion. [18] Also, WP:NOT states that only "collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" are not allowed, whereas the Gallery of Presidents of the United States does contain text (such as the names of the presidents and the years of their terms in office).--TBCTaLk?!? 05:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List of Presidents of the United States lists the names of the presidents and the years of their terms in office. So how are they Not redundant? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zzyzx11. He's right, all the pictures are right there in the List of Presidents of the United States article, there's no need for this. Nothing links here anyway.--UsaSatsui 06:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to List of Presidents of the United States, orphaned article. Fails Wikipedia is not a mirror or repository of links, images, or media files. --Coredesat 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant and orphaned - does have a more pleasing layout that List of Presidents of the United States though - Peripitus (Talk) 09:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant copy of Commons:President of the United States. —Lamentation :( 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep companion article to the text articles - we wouldn't wanna flood the real article with 50 official portraits, would we, but the info is eminently useful nonetheless! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The real article is already "flooded" with 50 official portraits. —Lamentation :( 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, completely redundant. WTF is wrong with me...!? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with having some well chosen image galleries and I think this one is a credit to Wikipedia. Honbicot 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Zzyzx11 (and redirect to List). I don't even see why there is debate over this. This content already exists on Wikipedia. Wickethewok 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Very original I must say. Wikipedia should have more of these. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant with List of Presidents of the United States and Commons:President of the United States.--Isotope23 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per TBC. I don't count the presentation of similar information in a different (and useful) form to be redundant. Many of the thumbnails on the List of Presidents of the United States are so small you can only tell that the person is white and male. hateless 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If your major argument is that is should be kept because the images on List of Presidents of the United States are too small, ONUnicorn just cancelled your argument out by doubling all the image sizes. Looks quite nice now.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and UsaSatsui. Agent 86 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, There is no need to have a redunant page, probably someone couldn't find the other one and made this one. The larger pictures are better, perhaps someone should increase the size of the images on the other one? ONUnicorn 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zzyzx11. Redundant list. --DaveG12345 21:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. This belongs in the Commons, where it already is. Ziggurat 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep actually encylopedic, a list of notable persons with portraits/photographs. I think it may be a little misplace, though. Yanksox ^(talk) 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Well, I just saw the list of US Presidents. Seems redundant now. Delete Yanksox ^(talk) 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It offers no information that can't be found elsewhere easily. GassyGuy 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and obvious redundancy with the President of.. article.--Peta 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to List of Presidents of the United States. There's nothing here that isn't already there. ScottW 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The policy on these "gallery" articles makes if very clear that are not allowed. Coffee 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Presidents of the United States since this page is somewhat redundant. Yamaguchi先生 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Presidents of the United States that page already has all the content. Eluchil404 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Presidents of the United States, or delete. --Ardenn 20:17, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIFIC

Hypothetical contraceptive name. Little is notable. Brad101 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Only 9 Google results [19], some of which are from Wikipedia--TBCTaLk?!? 08:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --DaveG12345 21:25, 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) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avianca codeshare destinations

A list of destinations for a major airline may be enough, but I dont know about codeshare destinations, considering they don't fly there themselves and the general consensus in the related wikiprojects is to not list codeshares. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Wikiproject consensus. --Coredesat 09:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per reasons above. Same logic as for deleting frequent flyer adward destinations. Vegaswikian 06:42, 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 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornocracy (term)

See also Pornocracy (AfD discussion).

This article is unencyclopedic in several ways - most prominently, it is rife with POV terms. No sources are cited. It seems to only be a subjective analysis of the main Pornocracy article detailing a period in the history of the papacy. I propose deletion given that any actual information contained here is covered in the main article. According to the disambiguation page, a book with this title is being released this year - if it deals with this subject, perhaps this article can be remade then. For now, it's best we put this one to rest. I'm surprised it's lasted this long and wasn't speedied. --BDD 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything not POV is already covered in the main article. This should just go. Fan1967 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hopelessly POV. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per the above. NPOV not recoverable without the article becoming a mere dicdef. Tevildo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Rule of the Harlots, much better article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, its a POV mess. hateless 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per hateless. No need to redirect as Pornocracy will get you there. --DaveG12345 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's PoV, redundant, OR and not really properly wikified. What isn't wrong with it? Ace of Sevens 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I think all the words are spelled correctly. Fan1967 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 18:17, 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 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plum (color)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles, Bisque (color) (AfD discussion), Cadet blue (AfD discussion), Caribbean green (AfD discussion), Carrot (color) (AfD discussion), Cheddar (color) (AfD discussion), Blue-gray (AfD discussion), Adobe (color) (AfD discussion), Alice-Blue (color) (AfD discussion), Pale raw umber (AfD discussion), Bright green (AfD discussion), and Pang (color) (AfD discussion).

Dictdef, and one that is already at Wiktionary wiktionary:Plum with essentially all the information here, the only original information on this article are a few infoboxes. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is not Orange (colour), Red (color) or Blue (color). The wiktionary article is all that this will ever be. --Peripitus (Talk) 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to Wiktionary article. --Coredesat 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See also Maize (color) Fram 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both this and Maize (color) if there's a chance. Colorcruft. --DaveG12345 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a dictdef and really can't be anything more. Ace of Sevens 23:28, 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 speedy deleted by Xoloz. Coredesat talk 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Roman-Cruz

No clear information given about notability; seems to fail WP:BIO. Crystallina 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Speedy A7. Seems like a nice and accomplished person but he hasn't made enough of impact to be notable enough for here - Peripitus (Talk) 09:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not sure it's an A7 (president of college radio station, for example) but definitely nonnotable at this time. NawlinWiki 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pref. Speedy, non-notable & none asserted. WP username of creator same as subject. --DaveG12345 21:59, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney bus route 380

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article is correct and this is a replacement for the Bondi Tram, it has been operating for 36 years. However, there is always a potential for bus routes to change. The other problem is that bus routes can change and it isn't a term that people would search for. Capitalistroadster 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On reflection, I can't see many people looking up Wikipedia for this. Capitalistroadster 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat 09:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly how can so many people agree with this? The article is not a bus schedule and does not attempt to give a schedule. It is about the route itself. The article gives details that are not found in a bus schedule, summarises information in ways not found in a bus schedule, gives wikipedia-links to stops which you don't get from a bus schedule, and does not list arrival times. It is a Wikipedia article, not a bus schedule. —Pengo 16:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Coredesat Kevin 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Coredesat. Cnwb 10:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone's argument. --Roisterer 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As others above point out, this is what Wikipedia is not. -- Docether 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Buscruft. --DaveG12345 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual bus routes in Sydney are not notable. The situation with List of Melbourne tram routes is thoroughly different as they are long established and have a degree of permanence, and are better written; they are more analogous to pages about railway lines. Jammo (SM247) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  This is the most subjective and rediculous comment I've seen. Bus routes in Sydney are well established and rarely change. The bus routes put up for deletion have been the same since long before Wikipedia started. Being "worse written" is not a reason for deletion. This is a long established route. —Pengo 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Is the busiest bus route in Australia, heavily used by tourists and locals alike, travels through and to popular Sydney destinations. Hasn't been up long enough for others to contribute to. MrHarper 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Frequency is not an indicator of notability. If that were so, infrequently served stations on the Sunshine Coast and in the Hunter Valley would not have pages. Bus routes change in a way permanent corridors cannot. At best, this can go on the main Sydney Buses page, as this is not like bus upgrade zone, which is a package of upgrades and not just a collection of unrelated routes, and not an article about the actual path of each route. SM247 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  I do not see why you make the assumption that frequency would be a yes or no factor in notability. High volume equals notability for me, where low volume is not the opposite. Ansell 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Volume is equally a non-factor in notability. Individual bus routes are not notable because they are not geographical features in the fashion of tram or train corridors. It makes no assertion of notability except for its frequency, which would equally make any number of stretches of road in metropolitan areas in Australia also worthy of a page if they had equivalent frequencies. It reads like a bus guide and not encyclopaedic information. At best, as I said, it can form part of Sydney Buses or List of bus routes in Sydney. Are we to have a separate page for all 300-odd STA routes, given that three have already popped up including one of absolutely no notability (the 410, a peak-only route)? SM247^{My Talk} 11:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Historical bus route operating for nearly 50 years, following the route of the old tramline, operating since 1884. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alexxx1. Ansell 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I think there is a role for major Sydney bus routes, but agree that a separate page for the 300 odd STA routes would be a bit silly. A precedent has been set- the London Bus pages anyone? 144.140.62.104 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment - I think this should be deleted, but I think this information should go in an article on Sydney's bus routes. Those sorts of pages have been declared to be worthy of inclusion in WP, but not an article on each route. (JROBBO 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - per WP:NOT. If there is a page on Sydney's bus routes and if this is appropriate to be included in there, then it should be there instead, definitely not an article on its own.--Konstable 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  What part of WP:NOT please? There is nothing there to say bus routes are not appropriate. —Pengo 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - the relevant information is already covered in Trams in Sydney and a brief 'notes' entry can easily be created on the List of bus routes in Sydney (there is already such a section for some of the routes in the tables but not others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM247 (talk • contribs) (my apologies)
• Strong Delete! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should be merged with articles on Oxford Street, Sydney and/or Bondi Road, Sydney assuming they exist. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep' per above. --JJay 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pretty much everyone above, esp. those at the top of the page. Inner Earth 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a historic overview then fine; It is not. The small historical section can be merged with Sidney. It differs from railway lines in that it is not a static feature. Also, nothing inherently notable. BlueValour 15:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  Sydney bus routes have rarely changed in the past, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so let's not make predictions about what they will do in the future. The bus route has historical significance which would surely not be appropriate to "Sidney", an article about a city of 4 million people. You can't expect the article to come fully formed with a long f'n history. Deleting articles before they can start is idiotic. —Pengo 04:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for its usefulness i've often looked up bus and tram routes on Wikipedia, which have more detailed, accessable and informative info than the timetables (which are usually linked to). —Pengo 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. This is a major route in a major city. An56 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we don't need articles about (busy or not)bus routes in every major cities, only notable bus routes should have their own article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  None of the items under that heading can be applied to bus routes. Like the most of the other "delete" entries here, no valid reason is given. —Pengo 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ste4k 06:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bogdan 08:51, 3 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 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney bus route 400

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Likely to change quickly and it is unlikely that people will use Wikipedia to look up bus routes. Capitalistroadster 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat 09:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly how can so many people agree with this? The article is not a bus schedule and does not attempt to give a schedule. It is about the route itself. The article gives details that are not found in a bus schedule, summarises information in ways not found in a bus schedule, gives wikipedia-links to stops which you don't get from a bus schedule, and does not list arrival times. It is a Wikipedia article, not a bus schedule. —Pengo 16:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Coredesat Kevin 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Coredesat. Cnwb 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. -- Docether 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --DaveG12345 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual bus routes in Sydney are not notable. The situation with List of Melbourne tram routes is thoroughly different as they are long established and have a degree of permanence, and are better written; they are more analogous to pages about railway lines. Jammo (SM247) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yay, that's my bus route! Delete. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for its usefulness i've often looked up bus and tram routes on Wikipedia, which have more detailed, accessable and informative info than the timetables. I've also caught the 400 plenty of times and welcome the article. —Pengo 15:47, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney bus route 410

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it is likely to change and people are unlikely to look up bus routes on Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not the right bus, mate. Shenme 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly how can so many people agree with this? The article is not a bus schedule and does not attempt to give a schedule. It is about the route itself. The article gives details that are not found in a bus schedule, summarises information in ways not found in a bus schedule, gives wikipedia-links to stops which you don't get from a bus schedule, and does not list arrival times. It is a Wikipedia article, not a bus schedule. —Pengo 16:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat Kevin 10:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Coredesat. Cnwb 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to get on the proverbial bus with everyone else and say delete. -- Docether 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You wait forever then three bus routes come along at once. --DaveG12345 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual bus routes in Sydney are not notable. The situation with List of Melbourne tram routes is thoroughly different as they are long established and have a degree of permanence, and are better written; they are more analogous to pages about railway lines. Jammo (SM247) 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for its usefulness i've often looked up bus and tram routes on Wikipedia, which have more detailed and informative info than the timetables (which are usually linked to). —Pengo 15:42, 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: We aren't yet at the point where headmasters automatically get articles as schools do, and with that out of the way, this man has never been committed of the crimes of which he is accused, so we have zero notable deeds by this man, and no claim by the keep side that he has ever done any. That makes this page little more than an attack - until a couple of days after creation the article contained the heading "Criminal History" where no such history exists. The use of possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by the article's creator in this discussion gives even more cause for concern for the article's future if it was kept. The majority for deletion is present but not overwhelming, however if I was to close this as 'no consensus' it would be an abdication of responsibility. Per WP:BLP, the level of care we must exercise with articles on living people leads me to close this as delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Joseph O. White

New Jersey high-school principal, accused of a crime and arrested only yesterday. Gets 8 Google News hits, all local. Otherwise completely non-notable. The photo used also seems to be improperly tagged. Was speedied and Prod'ed, but recreated and tags removed without comment. Calton | Talk 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy A7. 8 Google news hits. < 10 other unique net mentions I can find. Just another arrested public official of no asserted notability. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely not speedy. Delete as premature, but without prejudice to reinstatements if/when becomes notable, as he now has the potential to do - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: subject of relatively minor local controversy; otherwise non-notable. MCB 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Respectfully disagree- this is a topic of some significance- it is recurring issue as previously went through high profile trial on similar charges and was controversially acquitted, leading to rewriting of state legislation on recording confessions, was also present during previous events of historic significance in major school district (Phillip Pannell shooting and subsequent civil unrest). - Stentorian 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Even more odd is the fact that the comment by Stentorian was actually placed by NYC2TLV. (See this diff). --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Retracting my comment based on further review of history...still seems a little odd, though. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• No Delete: subject is entirely relevant to the rewritting of New Jersey state law in recording conversations. NYC2TLV 17:21, 26 June 2006 Article creator.
• Keep. Newsworthy person. TruthbringerToronto 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• In New Jersey -- and as the Google News hits show, not even much there. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Unbiased and fair report of ongoing story of interest to the Teaneck community. Maccaphile 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User's only edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Based on Maccaphile's comment. The notability of the subject is limited to the Teaneck community. No objection to recreation if the scope of notability expands beyond the Teaneck area. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Bugwit chose not to pay attention to the fact that this person has rewritten NEW JERSEY law which is a big deal in an important US state. --NYC2TLV feedback 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Didn't know that it was considered voting again, sorry.

• Comment Please be careful how you phrase your responses...other editors with hotter tempers than my own may interpret such statements as "...chose not to..." as being somewhat uncivil. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, can you actually prove that claim?--Isotope23 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here ya go "Prinicpal Faces New Sex Charges" from the Bergen Record. Read the whole article. -NYC2TLV feedback 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, after reading the article I'm not convinced. The article states "That case, as well as similar ones..." which denotes his first acquital was not the primary reason for the change in law, it was just one factor. That doesn't make a strong case towards WP:BIO in my opinion and makes statements that this person was directly responsible for changes to New Jersey appear to be hyperbole.--Isotope23 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria and per User:CrazyRussian, no predjudice against recreation if this story somehow gained national prominence or if someone verifiably sources the claim that his original acquital directly influenced a changes in New Jersey state legislation.--Isotope23 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bergen Record (June 24, 2006) corroborates that New Jersey Attorney General's office rewrote guidelines for obtaining confessions in wake of subject's first acquittal.- Stentorian 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What Stentorian stated was in fact published in news papers. This is an important issue to the township of Teaneck and the state of New Jersey. -- Kengineer1 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment actually by User: Kengineer1 - User's only edits --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable to me. I'd suggest a change of the heading "Criminal history" as POV, since no proven crime has yet occurred. --DaveG12345 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why this is even a question? --SpeechFreedom 1:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC

• User's 2nd edit --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Looks notable. It's not like we're running out of space or something. Ace of Sevens 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:BIO, appears to be noteworthy and worthy of an article. With several news sources, I see no reason for deletion. Yanksox ^(talk) 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete Minor and localized. Kevin_b_er 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO to me. GassyGuy 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per above reasons. TruthCrusader 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which ones? The ones that say "delete", or maybe the ones from the sockpuppets? --Calton | Talk 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you so against this page? Kengineer1 has been part of Wikipedia in the past only now he signed up because he agrees that this page should stay. --NYC2TLV 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur that there is possible sockpuppetry going on over here. Yanksox ^(talk) 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User:Stentorian, User:Maccaphile, User:Kengineer1, User:SpeechFreedom, & User:65.206.55.31 should all be looked into by the closing admin as possible sockpuppets of NYC2TLV based on the highly unusual edit histories of these users. WP:AGF and I don't bandy about accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, but there is enough evidence here to make me highly suspicious.--Isotope23 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Move to have unfounded accusation dismissed. While NYC2TLV did aid me as a like minded new contributor, I speak for myself and I think if you examine my (admittedly limited) contributions more closely, you will see the contrasts in our respective writing styles. --Stentorian 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I've requested a checkuser to verify the users I've listed above and if it is indeed done, we will then know if sockpuppetry is being utilized here. Like I said above, the edits here are highly unusual. If I'm wrong, I will apologize.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, is there a way to check IP addresses so that the acqusations can be done away with as quickly as possible? --NYC2TLV 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Have we run a check of IP addresses yet? I happen to be new to Wiki discussions, but that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. I'll accept your apology whenever you'd like to offer it, Isotope23. --Maccaphile17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Comment -- 4 edit's worth -- actually by 65.206.55.31 (talk · contribs)

• The very first edit you "two" make as registered Wikipedia editors is to come vote here. It also seems strange, "Maccaphile", that you can't remember to log in, but know enough to manually paste in a your sig, complete with date. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• For the purposes of AFD, it doesn't matter whether they're from the same IP, or even the same human being: new users' comments aren't given much weight, especially if all they do is repeat each other. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-28 22:31Z

• Keep. Seems pretty important given our focus on schools. Could also be merged with Teaneck High School, although the article is good enough to stand alone. --JJay 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• What "focus on schools" would that be? That would be: none. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• You may not have noticed, but we have excellent coverage of schools, although much more still needs to be done. See: Portal:Schools, Category:High schools in the United States, or Category:High schools in New Jersey, to name a few. --JJay 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• StrongSpeedy delete. Wikipedia is not: a newspaper, a registry of accused sex offenders, a gossip sheet, a directory of high school principals, or a place for defamation. He is completely non-notable outside his own high school. KleenupKrew 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not yet notable. (Watch for socks, please.) -AED 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to Teaneck High School, where the controversy is relevant. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-28 22:23Z
• Comment I think though that this event is actually making some waves on a bigger scale then local Teaneck/Bergen County politics, time will tell. I can also assure you that I am no puppet and am voicing my opinion solely because I believe that it is noteworthy and useful. I fully agree that nobody should be inviting people on solely for the purpose of keeping stupid threads. --SpeechFreedom 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per KleenupKrew and AED (amongst others). Inner Earth 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Teaneck High School, where this would actually be relevant. RFerreira 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Absolute Strongest and Immediate Speedy Delete as (1) egregious violation of WP:BLP, (2) violation of WP:NOT EVIL, (3) blatant attack page, (4) utterly non-notable person (does this pass the ten-year test?). Should be deleted at once as harmful to Wikipedia in many ways. Wikipedia must not and cannot be allowed to be a forum to spread nasty info, even if true, about one's enemies. Wikipedia has much more visibility than most any other web site, and a Wikipedia article is forever, or at least for a long time. Despicable. Obvious and transparent use of sock/meat puppets doesn't helpHerostratus 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Aren't you over-reacting just a wee, little bit. Considering this article concerns a public figure and is based on multiple references from the NY Times and other top-flight news sources, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the second page you referred to, WP:Not Evil, is an essay and thus has no bearing on the discussion. Wikipedia may be forever, but so are national newspapers - I hardly see that as a valid argument for deletion (and this is not a speedy delete). --JJay 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - CSD-A7, as repeatedly mentioned. Notable (if at all) only to a small community in the USA. Teachers had up on charges, even heads, are not notable simply for that fact. What next - every alleged rapist, kerb crawler and petty thief? Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What are you talking about? Silensor 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nice to see you make good use of the argumentative technique of selective interpretation. (Spot the fact I listed a number of offences not of global note, coupled with the use of the word "every"?) Some instances may merit mention in a global encyclopaedia, for reasons of notability. Most are of note to no-one but the immediate community affected. This case for instance. If it ever becomes important beyond its currently limited catchment, then there may be an argument for constucting an article in the context of the case. Currently it's just an attack on the individual based on regurgitating in a global medium what appears to be being published on a small local front. Currently I wouldn't say it compares well in stature against - say - Homer, Yuri Gagarin, or quantum mechanics. Don't let that stop you whipping up the fervour though. There's nothing like a good lynching. Cain Mosni 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't insult the New York Times [20]. It has been a "global" medium, both in print and pixel forms, since before wikipedia was a gleam in Mr. Wales's eye. --JJay 23:14, 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 no consensus. Given the sterling work done to the article, at first glance a fresh AfD would result in a keep consensus, but I'm concerned by the fact that no articles link to this one, and no articles in Wikipedia currently mention Cedric Gore (so no potential for it). That's very strange for someone who's supposedly notable. Nonetheless, I'm not going to second-guess the discussion here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedric Gore

After an initial db-bio notice, this article still suspiciously sounds like a promotional press release promoting Cedric Gore's company "Java Kitty" rather than an encyclopedia entry. -- Netsnipe 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO, advertising. --Coredesat 09:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, as Wikipedia advert articles go, this one ain't even subtle. --Dweller 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) opinion revised... see below

• Hold, Please advise on how "general" it needs to be to remain informative? Should his company names be removed from the entry? There aren't too many African American technologists to report on so I am trying to do my best to submit thoughtful information on the few I know of.--Francespeabody 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You would need to demonstrate some notability as reported by verifiable reliable sources. Good luck, because I turned up zip. An example (just to illustrate) on being "general" - Bandlink (like several other DRM systems) seems somewhat unpopular with music fans, as there seem to be people who bought CDs with Bandlink who cannot play them in their machines, and others claim it is in effect spyware (this was the only kind of non-press-release stuff I could find on the technology). If this was to be a balanced article, it might mention the record company stuff and how great Bandlink is (which it does now), and then mention the technical problems and its critical reception. Then it might seem balanced. If the article only mentions the upside with happy quotes, as if the product's a roaring success, then it might look like a puff-piece. --DaveG12345 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable - 50 Ghits for the person, 50 Ghits for the product Bandlink, of which some were irrelevant, and most others were dissing the product. --DaveG12345 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Neutral - see comment below. --DaveG12345 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - revised per new version, see below. --DaveG12345 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as above. Nonsuch 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I am a student at Morehouse University and saw the guy speak here some time ago. The article is about "The Guy" and what he has done. You guys are talking about a few negative user comments for one of his products though citing nothing specific. Shoddy Google searching if you ask me. Why not do some research before throwing up Delete flags. You don't have to like what the guy does but he has done significant things.
• Strong Keep. Article has been substantially amended. No longer looks like unsubtle advert. Does demonstrate substantial notability for a fantastic invention. --Dweller 09:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Shawn Fanning" is listed in Wiki' too and though he has many hackers like yourselves on his jock, he was hated by the record labels.

"Cedric Gore" has done work that has been embraced and widely used by the labels and according to his speech, his work appears on something like over 20 million CDs. So 50 negative comments out of 20MM CDs is freaking amazing. That ratio makes Microsoft products look like Satan's work.

No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? I did in fact link to the "Slash Dot" article, which is where I am sure most of the negative issues you list come from anyway.

Further, I have looked at other Wiki articles to gain examples of "good content" and see nothing that much different from what I contributed. Speaking of Shawn Fanning, no negative press is listed in his bio. What about Lars Ulrich's diatribe, and oh, I don't know, the entire music industry contempt for him and his work, yet nada is up there and you guys taint saying anything now. Yet, you want me to post just negative stuff about this guy to show the world just how bad black folks are. Why is that, hmmm?

Why just rush to delete stuff you don't know. I did not know about 99% of the stuff here until I saw it here, but when I try to include something about the black community you all just start slamming it.

DaveG12345, what exactly is the "Ghit" quota for approval?

I guess this is your collective way of "White Washing" the site. If an African American contributes to technology that the music industry embraces, his offering is meaningless because you can find a few fans who miscategorize just "one" of his products. That is just your arbitrary standard. How many musicians lost money, work, and music from Shawn's contributions and slammed him for what he was doing?

Oh... no Ghits to corroborate that? I see, if you got blonde hair and blue eyes but get shut down, you get a free ride on the site and a movie role.

I will withdraw the submission and look for a more fair opportunity elsewhere! --Francespeabody 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghits is shorthand for "Google hits". When I nominated this article for deletion, I had no racial bias whatsoever or any agenda against Cedric Gore or his company. It was simply my belief that since this article isn't a biography of a noted person, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You have to understand that a lot of people try to take advantage of Wikipedia's ranking on search engines to promote themselves and their own companies/products. At the end of the day this article isn't a biography. If it read like one, then I wouldn't have any objections. Sure not every article out there lives up to that standard, but I only have the time to call them as I see them go past me in the recent edits queue. -- Netsnipe 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, hey, calm down Frances, I have clearly upset you big-time, and believe me, that wasn't the intention. I certainly hope you won't be going anywhere just yet. I gave my comments above in good faith, as I'm sure everyone on here does. I tried to determine the "notability" of the subject of the article, and I couldn't.

Just to start off with, let me say that nothing that gets written on these Articles-for-Deletion pages is aimed at the people writing the article OR the actual people that the article is about. When we say "delete, not notable", we are not saying "that person is nobody" or "the writer of this article is nobody" - we are saying that, as a Wikipedia article, there is not enough evidence out there to convince us, personally, that this person is "notable" enough to have a WP article. We don't just have a random guess. Honestly we don't. Well - I certainly don't. We are not just looking at the person, for example, and saying "no, they don't belong" without thinking any more about it. Seriously, you must believe me on that. We spend as much time as is reasonable assessing these things before we make a comment.

OK.

The main criteria used for deleting an article about a person is - as you see above - called WP:BIO. If you follow that link it gives guidelines for the type of people that are "notable" enough to have Wikipedia (WP) articles. But there are other guidelines too, and at the end of the day, it is tricky, because we do have to weigh up lots of factors. What many of us do here as part of this process is a WP:GOOG test when we come across a new person article, to see how many Google hits we get (Ghits) for that person. If they don't get very many Ghits, we tend to suspect the person is not very "notable". But we will do other tests too - for example, I looked up the Bandlink product, and did some other tests too, that I can't exactly remember right now. But I did whatever I could.

OK, that's how I came up with my deletion part above. I could hardly find any Ghits about the person (50 is considered very low), or the product, and (as I said above), some of the comments were not positive.

Just a thing I want to point out before I carry on. The reason we have to do these tests and so on, is usually because the article doesn't already say why the person is notable. It often just says "this guy did x and y". There's often no evidence in the article. If we're not experts on the subject, we often have very little information to go on. That's why we do these Ghit tests and so on.

OK.

I think what has happened with my "Comment" to you above, is I was writing very quickly and shorthandedly, when I probably should have slowed down and thought for a minute, and explained myself better. So, sincere apologies for that.

I think the "only guy throwing up negative comments" about any products round here was me, by the way. I hope you can now appreciate that this wasn't meant to criticise the person researching the article in any way, nor the person this article is about.

I was just trying to say, that it's very common to see articles that describe a person in really positive terms, that make it sound like everything is great. You can always tell they are written by someone very enthusiastic about the subject of the article. Sometimes, it seems to be so great, that people suspect someone from the company, or related to that person, or even the person themselves, wrote the article. Now, let me point out, that wasn't what I thought about this article, but the people above who wrote "advertising" in their comments probably did. Don't take it as a criticism, it is just what people, reading the article for the first time in their lives, thought.

I just wanna say, there's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about the subject of the article. But the problem is, it has to be "toned down" for Wikipedia. It isn't like a forum or blog. And that was what I was trying to point out with my "Comment" above.

So, to illustrate what a "toned-down" article might look like, I gave an example (looking back, probably a bad example!) of the Bandlink DRM technology, and how an "enthusiastic" tone might say "the technology is great", whilst a negative tone would say "the technology is terrible", but the neutral tone (the Wikipedia tone) might say "the technology is very successful, lots of record labels are using it, they are all very happy about it, ALTHOUGH! some users have complained that the technology made their CDs unusable, or whatever".

I hope you see what I was trying to do. It was just meant as an example of "tone" that doesn't look like advertising, because no one would ever put that in their advert, right? That it sometimes didn't work...

And I was writing it quickly, and probably not giving it enough thought. But I wasn't dissing the product or the guy that invented it - I only found out about them both today, so what do I know about them? - I was just saying, it helps to CONVINCE people a lot more that an article isn't an advert, if it says the positive things and the negative things.

Anyway, I hope you see how an article that presents both viewpoints comes across as a bit more "balanced" than the other two options. Obviously, to include any of that in YOUR article, you would need some sources to back it up in the first place, and like I said originally, I could hardly find any information on the internet, so I wished you good luck in searching (the internet is not the only place to get sources, of course, but it's all I have with me right now).

Finally, I am amazed you thought there was any racial motive behind what I wrote, and I hope you don't feel that way any longer. My user page is at the end of this post, and if you wanna talk to me about editing this article to maybe help it survive this AfD process, or about anything else to do with writing this article, just leave a message on my Talk page or the Talk page of the article itself (it is on my Watchlist).

And what I am going to do now, as a mark of good faith to you, for obviously upsetting you, is remove my "vote" from this discussion. --DaveG12345 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Look guys, do what you feel you must. I see this tendency time and again in American society. For instance no Black Senator or government official has ever even made his way on to a beloved postal stamp. Unless something of note has a white face or gains the blessings of the White propagation machine, it gets ignored.

What you folks fail to realize is that we are a Minority in this Country so if 100% of us were online and using Google, we would still represent 13% of the total traffic. That suggest that there would always be far less "Hit Based" traffic than any white counterpart. Now consider that by 1998 only 48% of blacks over 18 were online and though we are finally up to 60% that is only 8% of the total number of "Ghits". Do you routinely purchase African American themed publications? I doubt it, which is why the more obscure but noteworthy citizens of African descent, go largely unnoticed by anyone outside of the race. (Unless you can shake your ass, play sports, or sing, you don't stand a chance, but definitely not "thinkers".)

I don't say you are actively using race as a way to disqualify the article, but you are subjecting it to standards like a Google search. That is fine for Historical African American figures and references which have had some time to mature in discussion by African American contributors, but what of contemporary individuals. Guys who are doing things now? Who is the Black "Shawn Fanning"? (No one commented on his inclusion from my previous comment) Prominent Blacks do exist whether you know of them or not and that is my point for including this guy. How else are you going to find out?

Quick Story:

I went to Disney Studios some years ago and shook the hand of the guy who was Lead-artist in drawing "Mickey Mouse" for modern use in film productions. He showed me 80 years of design iterations and what he was working on for modern interpretations, took his time to patiently pull out all manner of his work and design contributions, he was also African American. I had no idea of the guy, what he was doing, the significance of his work or anything. I sure as hell know of John Lasseter, and I feel better for knowing of him, but that guy, who's hand I shook, nobody knows! I have a million folks I would love to inform about him but no outlet. Oh, but wait what about Wikipedia? Well I tried that but if the admins don't know the guy personally forget about it.

I honestly don't personally even know of any African American's who know of what Wikipedia is, let alone having contributed to it. I am sure many of us use it but I don't know of any personally contributing to it. Not when the fight for daily recognition is paramount. I don't think you guys are able to see things from this perspective but, the people of "note" in our community might not ever pop up on the radar in yours. Cedric Gore was featured in Black Enterprise magazine, which is like the "Black Forbes" to us, but I guarantee not one of you ever picked up a Black Enterprise magazine in your life.

I am not suggesting applying different or "Less" of a standard for African American contribution but at least try to investigate beyond traditional media or just "White" publications. I am not at odds with any of you for your opinions, I am asking you to expand your field of research. --Francespeabody 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above. I've changed my mind and gone for "keep" on this, but Francespeabody you miss the point... when you refer to "this country" I assume you mean USA. This is not an American project. There are many millions of web users outside of your country and hey, guess what? Some of them are black and some of them are white. --Dweller 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have done some research and contributed to this article, and I believe that the subject is suitably notable for WP inclusion. Please check out the article and comment here with any thoughts. I've also responded to the author Francespeabody at their user page re the above comments, and given a few pointers on WP basics. This was a newbie's first article, probably created without much support, and to see it up for deletion I think was upsetting for them, hence some of the previous comments. But I hold nothing against them for that, it's hard work and bewildering starting out on here. I hope they choose to stay. --DaveG12345 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to either Javakitty Media or Bandlink. As it stands, the article is entirely about the software, rather than the person. Notability of Bandlink seems to be well-established by the references in the article, notability of Mr Gore as an individual, no. Tevildo 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Time would be better spent fixing the entry, and less on screaming "racism". --DarkAudit 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment First, thanks to those of you who have helped with the article and for offering feedback on how to improve the article. I do appreciate your support and hope it is enough to keep this alive. Ultimately, I will have to let the article run its course so it will either be given a chance or not.

In either case, I thought the contribution was being rather impetuously marked for deletion so I responded to the best of my ability. Sorry if it seemed overly defensive but no one seemed to want to do anything beyond Google in terms of research to validate the work but instantly everyone started putting the guy down. I actually believe that the remark of my having "Screamed Racism" implied recently by "darkaudit" is counter-balanced by the general "Soft Bigotry" implicit in his and others attitude to rush to remove a contribution based on the rather limited premise of "if I don't know the guy, he can't be worth knowing". But to not ask the question "why haven't I heard of the guy? and then do something to uncover the answer seems anathema to the spirit of the website."

DarkAudit directed his rather poignant remark toward me, "Time would be better spent fixing the entry, and less on screaming racism". This was a point I thought I exactly made earlier when I said; "No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? 08:14, 27 June 2006".

Wow, if my remarks are going to be ignored in this conversation, why should I expect my thoughts from the primary article to inform opinion. Time spent criticizing is definitely speedier than having to "read everything" but hey, I can forgive your transgression if you can forgive my early ineptitude with the "Wiki-System".

I still hope to be given a chance here, as well I hope to contribute future articles which may or may not be deemed relevant to all admins/editors, but as a contributor I should at least be given a chance to defend my position or to minimally, have my remarks "read" by those who would put me on the defense for my contributions in the first place.--Francespeabody 06:03, 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. --Coredesat talk 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigq

Ad for non-notable software reseller -- Netsnipe 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advert, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 09:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly Fram 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also fails proposed WP:SOFTWARE Pascal.Tesson 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but advertising NawlinWiki 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --DaveG12345 22:39, 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 no consensus to delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girls At The Cairo National Stadium

Self-promotion GrAfFiT^{Talk Contribs} 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'. Notable, controversial news item. Parsssseltongue 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one article in the local supplement of a newspaper, other mentions being a forum post and a sport website article written by the author himself. Additionnally, the article contains a lenghty "letter" from the author. Wikipedia is not a press release repository.. GrAfFiT^{Talk Contribs} 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Yes, this is self-promotion and the article should be rewritten. Yet the documentary gained some real interest across national boundaries, including in a large country like Egypt. I think therefore that it is notable, but only by points. gidonb 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per nom. The lengthy letter is blatant soapboxing. The film may have some notability, but it is not being expressed appropriately, so I cannot tell. If its only notability is this spat with the papers, which results in this soapboxing while painting the film as if it's the focus of the article, then I think it has to go (WP:NOT A4). --DaveG12345 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (see below) --DaveG12345 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GrAfFiT Resolute 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- GWO
• Weak Delete really nn movie (I am from Israel). --Haham hanuka 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self promotion of NN amateur video clip. Noon 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For a related nomination, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan the Security Guard gidonb 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some cleanup has taken place, and it's much better without the letter rant, but the vanity remains for me. The reader is told the film is "created by artist and filmmaker Nimrod Kamer", then told "Nimrod Kamer, creator of the video, is an Israeli filmmaker and journalist", and then "creator Nimnrod Kamer" gets a third full citation. Is this article about a notable film, or a vanity piece for the director? An introductory mention is fine, of course, but thereafter it's surely just "Kamer" or "the director", since we already know who he is and what he does, and this article purports to be about the film itself and its controversy? Just a GF observation. --DaveG12345 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed that as well. I agree with you that the refs below are not helpful for establishing notability. I am fine with any outcome. gidonb 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep it is a scandal with over 20 mentions in all sorts of blogs such as -
  • A man will die, but not his ideas.

Monday, March 06, 2006. Even the Israeli press got interested. Girls at The Cairo National Stadium on Google Video. Posted by A :: 3:06 AM :: 0 Comments: ... [21]

• • Knows-It-All

Mosque of Ibn Tulun · Girls At The Cairo National Stadium, A video. Further reading. Artemis Cooper, Cairo in the War, 1939-1945, Hamish Hamilton, ... [22]

• • Woman Soccer Videos and Clips

Girls at The Cairo National Stadium \ A video by Nimrod Kamer \ Egypt-Israel2006. Meadowhead Girls Football. ANB Soccer Academy - Coach Bassam. [23]

• • Help.com - categoryegypt

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium. R. RC Egypt. S. Social Fund for Development (Egypt) · Categories: African countries | Middle Eastern countries ... [24] --Marina T. 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first link is a blurb on a NN blog, second and third are spammer-aggregators, they merely regurgitate the Wikipedia article GrAfFiT^{Talk Contribs} 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to Keep It has been improved and no longer looks like a vanity (except for the stuff in my comment above). --DaveG12345 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Srong Keep were in the news at Egypt. Israeli alternative director and journalist. Shmila 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. An article and web forum postings do not a controversy make. f(x)=ax²+bx+c 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't not let him fool you, this is really NN "movie". [25] --Haham hanuka 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For someone who removes personal attacks, I would like to encourage you to improve your language as well. gidonb 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not mistake hot air on the Web for notability. Sandstein 07:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess. It's a decent article, it appears to have generated a bit of buzz, and filmcruft is at least better than Pokemoncruft. Doubtful that it passes the 10-year test, but who knows. Herostratus 19:26, 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 wasSpeedy Delete - A7 by User:Lectonar - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy is hot

Vanity and no content. Kf4bdy 08:38, 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 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SmutVibes.com is social networking minus censorship

Blatant advertising/self-promotion of non-notable site. -- Matticus78 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good Lord! Delete, blatantly fails WP:ADS and WP:WEB. --Coredesat 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Funny, but delete. Anand^(talk) 11:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Add this title to the worst deleted article titles list. Wickethewok 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising and violation of WP:WEB. Possible NPOV to boot, but who's counting? -- Docether 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the many great reasons noted above. ---Charles 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Charles. Does the creator know this is an encyclopedia? --DaveG12345 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Smutvibes.com itself may be notable, but this article would need to be moved and completely rewritten. Might as well just delete and recreate at the proper place if it passes notability. Ace of Sevens 23:35, 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 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam O'Hirsi

Tagged as db-repost, but I did not see a deleted version in history, and no link to an AfD. May well be a nn-bio, but that might just be systemic bias. Needs cleanup or deletion, not sure which. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. His main claim to notability is a book published by AuthorHouse, who are self-publishing specialists. The link in the article leads to Barnes and Noble. Mr Stephen 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO - only 4 unique Google hits. --Coredesat 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mr Stephen. There's a pretty strong precendent/consensus that vanity-press publications aren't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mr Stephen. --DaveG12345 23:24, 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 delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Daily

NN online game, text of article states less than 100 members, fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, plus a hint of vani-. "Self penned bios" of the site mods, tsk... --DaveG12345 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, yes there is a bit of vanity perhaps. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Pboyd04 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to a Harry Potter article, or sub article, with citations. Zos 03:49, 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 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kris Craig, That DAMNED Liberal Show

Tagged nn-bio, contested. Seems to be "notable" solely as the host of an "Internet radio" show (i.e. webcast) of no provable significance. Rolling in the show, That DAMNED Liberal Show, which makes a single (and unprovable / uncoited) claim to fame. Looks like a case of WP:HOLE to me. Just zis Guy you know? 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete That DAMNED Liberal Show as unverifiable (no Google hits). Delete Kris Craig as non-notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:HOLE (though WP:HOLE isn't a policy). --Coredesat 09:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, possibly Speedy per Coredesat. Not entirely sure what claim to notability in the Craig's article got the BIO tag removed (there is only one that I could find, and that one was marginal at best). By any means, neither of these articles demonstrates the subjects' notability to a level appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- It appears that the article's author removed the speedy tag from the page, which is something I was under the impression that only administrators are to do. In view of that, I'm more inclined to recommend speedy for this. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete both ugh - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per the above. I would also watch for sockpuppets in those articles as Kris Craig has contributed to Universal health care as User:Sir kris, User:24.17.137.180, and User:24.19.255.254 (per discussion in Talk:Universal health care/Archive 1). For what it's worth, User:67.183.207.37 is my latest suspect as he has also recently contributed to Universal health care, Kris Craig, and That DAMNED Liberal Show. -AED 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as per the above & per WP:VANITY. Also please note that User:168.103.173.14 removed the AfD header on both articles (I restored), so if that IP address is a sockpuppet for Kris Craig anyone, he they would appear to be showing bad faith &/or poor judgement in this matter. Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - should also consider removing Kristopher David Craig as well, as it is a redirect to Kris Craig. Also perhaps we should have any admin investigating sockpuppets also look to see if User:Pub biographer is involved eith any of the IPs/Accounts listed above. -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, if these articles are removed by this AfD, someone should also do an IfD for Image:Kris_craig_tdls_2003.jpg & Image:Kris craig 2003.jpg, which are used in the articles above. Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See Talk:Kris Craig for the author's arguments for keeping the article. Mak (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both after reading the author's arguments for keeping that article. An interview? WP:NOR fail, in addition to the zero notoriety and van-vertising noted above. --DaveG12345 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, after reading the article AND the author's rhetorical handwaving on the talk page. Man, I HATE wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 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 per opinions beyond the usual reflexive school inclusionism - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)

This school is totally non-notable. Being one of the top 50 (!) Schools in one particular religion in one country is not notability. Stroika 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, although my vote will undoubtedly be swallowed up in a matter of a couple of days. For the sake of argument, I'll give my reason anyway: WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, schools are not inherently notable, and being "one of the top 50" is not sufficiently notable. Being named after a notable figure does not confer notability to something. --Coredesat 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Coredesat. Big sigh per subsequent discussion. Tychocat 09:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - named after John Henry Cardinal Newman, Joe Montana's kids seem to go there and it's listed as an encyclopediac article in WikiProject Missing Articles so someone else seems to think it worth some paper. This unfortunately is the best I can find and it fails to inspire. Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Schools are not likely to be named after some nonentity. The mere fact that this school is named after Newman does not make it notable. Come on Peripitus, make that a delete, better yet a strong delete.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Catholic schools named after Newman are pretty much ubiquitous. --DaveG12345 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Srong Keep For one Joe Montana is a football coach there but also this school is a bit bigger/notable than the stub let on. It is actually two schools as I've just updated the article to reflect. Ursuline High School is it's other half. Netscott 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Can you show where the schools say their related ? Ursuline High looks ok but I can't find where either site says they're sub-schools of a larger one. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well for starters look at their addresses. Netscott 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• This page shows a bit more the linkage. I'm looking for another page or two. Netscott 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The other school doesn't seem to be notable, either. Even if it were, its notability wouldn't transfer over to this school. --Coredesat 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well I suppose Montgomery High School, Santa Rosa High School and Piner_High_School should be tagged for deletion as well because they are all about as notable as Cardinal Newman High School. Netscott 09:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• These Schools should probably be tagged as well. Netscott 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Begs the question. If we had proposed one those schools for deletion would you not know be arguing "well Cardinal Newman High has an article so we can't delete Montgomery High School/Santa Rosa High School/Piner_High_School"?--Stroika 10:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, if you'd ask any student from any one of those schools I cited if their school was more "notable" than Cardinal Newman... 99 times out of 100 I'm sure you'd get a "no" answer. In the grand scheme of things none of these schools are exceptionally "notable". That is my point. Netscott 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• So why are you opposing the deletion? Just because we have other articles about non-notable schools does not mean we should have this article about this non-notable school. --Stroika 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mostly because all of these schools form a sort of "pod" and this pod is notable. If one of the articles is to exist they all should exist. That's really my primary reason. Netscott 10:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) OK we'll delete them later, but first things first. This is the discussion page for the proposal to delete Cardinal Newman High School. Can you come up with any arguments as to why this school is notable? I repeat: your arguments so far beg the question.--Stroika 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Netscott you are editing your arguments (not just for typos) after they have been answered. This diff shows. It has the effect of making it look like I am not replying to what you said. Incidentally why is this pod notable. If it is notable why is there not an article for it?--Stroika 10:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Did my edit commentary say "typo" there? Please refrain from giving the appearance that my creditibiliy is in question. Netscott 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry edit conflict confused me.--Stroika 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• My argument is for completeness. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to track down how this school is notable outside of being part of the grouping I've mentioned but as part of a set of articles about related schools of equal notability from the same region it absolutely makes sense that it should not be deleted. Netscott 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable? Why is there not an article on the "pod" instead of on the schools in the "pod"? To put it another way, could your arguments not be used to defend any article whatsoever from deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Where will it end?--Stroika 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well prior to my editing it the Montgomery High School article already pointed to Cardinal Newman High School so your argument isn't holding up... due to the simple fact that a viable relationship between the two articles has been established. Your argument is largely hyperbolic. Netscott 10:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hyerbole is a figure of speech. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Hyperbole is acceptable in argument (although in this case it isn't hyperbole, it's reductio ad absurdum). You are begging the question and by definiuton a logical fallacy is not acceptable in argument. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable. Does anyone else even use the term "pod" in this connection?--Stroika 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I love when others argue and rely upon fallacies while being fully aware of such a reliance. The Santa Rosa metropolitan area represents the largest Californian population center north of San Francisco therefore one of the principal reasons the pod (set) is notable is the fact that the combined student populations of the schools in the pod (set) represent the bulk of all high school students for Northern California north of San Francisco. In terms of student population Cardinal Newman High School is likely in the top 5 for all of northern California from Santa Rosa north (and surely in the top 10). Netscott 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is Cardinal Newman High School notable? The bulk of the population of Northern California live on a street in Northern California, therefore (by your argument) ought there to be articles on every street in Northern California? If the pod is notable create an article for that. What is under discussion here is whether this article should be deleted. The reason cited to support deletion is that this school is not notable. What do you have to say to that? Mere membership of a supposedly notable group of schools does not make this school notable. (The US is notable, every US citizen is not notable). --Stroika 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, You've spurred me on to do some actual research. When you got the likes of Joe Montana not only helping to support (look for mention of his name and pictures of him) the high school attended by his two sons but additionally have him as junior varsity quarterbacks coach there and also have mention of that in places like Knoxville, Tennessee you've got a notable school. Netscott 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• No that's notable information (perhaps) for the article on Joe Montana. Its not "the likes of Joe Montana" is it?. It is just Joe Montana. Remove Joe Montana and you have no notability for this school. Remove Prince William from Eton and Eton College is still notable. The interest of those news outlets is in Mr Montana, not his children, not in the school. I list some of the schools I think are notable here. Why should one guy's interest mean that this school deserves a full blown article? --Stroika 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not merely an interest, Joe Montana is actually coaching there. Netscott 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• So what? Like I said, take him away and what have you got? Nothing. This information belongs if anywhere in the article for Joe Montana. This school is still not notable in and of itself. Therefore it doesn't deserve an article on wikipedia. Talk about the school please, not one (and it seems only to be one) famous parent.--Stroika 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again I ask, why is this school notable. Why is this "pod" notable?--Stroika 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per my own nomination. I bet this is one of the top five schools on the Californian central coast with the word Cardinal in its name.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per original nomination and subsequent agreement. If the VC Fred Wilson is considered 'unnotable' enough not to be allowed his own entry on Wikipedia, then this school is in exactly the same boat. Isn't a 'pod' where you store your tunes? OnyxOnline 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've always been against having most high schools/secondary schools on Wikipedia, but for some reason others seem to feel they're inherently notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. No claim of notability offered up in article. High schools are not inherently notable. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being among the top 50 in a country as large as the US probably isn't to be sniffed at. Besides, I have no objection to subjects of interest only to a minority as long as they don't violate policy. David L Rattigan 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's misleading. It's not exactly right to say that it's one of the top 50 schools in the US, because it probably isn't in the top 50 of all High Schools of the US. The top 50 Catholic High Schools is a horse of a different color, because that's a far, far smaller category. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't say "top 50 high schools in the US" - I just said "top 50" as shorthand for "top 50 Catholic high schools", which I assumed (rightly or wrongly) would be apparent to anyone following the discussion. David L Rattigan 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed with previous comment, top 50 catholic school is a very weak claim to fame. Pascal.Tesson 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly respectable article. Honbicot 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment the respectability of the article is not in question. The notability of the subject is.--Stroika 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. All high schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The first time I visited Wikipedia I looked up my school. Then I clicked on one of the links to an alumnus and amended it (this was long before I had an account). If there had been no article about the school I might never have visited Wikipedia again. Golfcam 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - What has that got to do with the merits of this article? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Linked with an American footballer I've heard of, and there are only about two of them. Olborne 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'd never heard of him at all. Would that have been allowed as an argument? No obviously not and rightly so. Therefore I ask why is the fact that you have heard of him an argument for keeping this article?--Stroika 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — I find High Schools notable. — RJH (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment What is this magical quality that makes all High Schools/Secondary Schools notable? Please I want to see if I can find it elsewhere. Maybe I have it. (sotto voce) Maybe you do.--Stroika 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — I do not, and I find Coredesat's and Stroika's arguments convincing. -- Docether 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The students don't appear to be notable, the architecture (ie the building itself) doesn't appear to be notable, the teachers don't appear to be notable and just who (in the grand scale of things) is Joe Montana ??? If he really is so important, why don't we have a page which lists schools he went to, or a page of restaurants he's visited ??? It seems to me that the only argument for a keep is that he is a member of staff. Anyway this if this discussion goes on much longer he will have retired and the problem will resolve itself!! David Humphreys 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Something doesn't have to be policy in order to be cited. Silensor 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, on the merits of the article itself. I have consistently said that schools are not inherently notable or encyclopedic. As a result, I have consistently said that school articles ought to be judged on their own merits: WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. However, I am also of the opinion that individual schools are capable of being notable and encyclopedic. In this case, there is an assertion of encyclopedic value (as outlined above and within the article itself), so on its own merits I chime in with my "keep". Agent 86 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I personly don't subscribe to the "schools are magic"-sentiment, but this passes my bar of notability, in fact it shines like a diamond in the depths of coal of the schoolcruft we have here at Wikipedia. --Eivind^t@c 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment If this article is better than the common run of schoolcruft surely that's all the more reason to delete this one and make it that much easier to delete the others when the time comes (which assuredly will)? (*begins to hum Dies Irae*)--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't follow your reasoning, we should delete notable schools so we can delete non-notable school? Say what!? I stand by my comment, it's one of the top 50 catholic schools in the US, and Montana tips it just over the bar. --Eivind^t@c 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep this article as lots of people value it. Ramseystreet 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment to forestall more arguments of this type. But why oh why do so many people value this article? (Assuming they do which is not apparent from its edit history). Do they only value it because other people value it? What is so valuable about this article? Why does Cardinal Newman High School deserve an article?--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trying to reduce the hemorrhaging are we? Hehe. Netscott 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Coredsat and Stroika; if this was important someone would have explained why in the article, but they haven't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High schools are generally considered notable anyway and this one seems to be more so than most. Ace of Sevens 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angusmclellan. IMO, if there's a notable "pod" of schools, write the article on the pod, but not articles on every unnotable school in the thing. --DaveG12345 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is some bias, but I don't care for the random jumble of schools throughout the country that people seem intent on creating. The school is no more notable than a local company to me. Kevin_b_er 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the top 50 Catholic schools in the US and Joe Montana coaches there. Seems to meet the tentative WP:SCHOOLS policy that we had. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wait a minute there's a policy on schools? Well that changes everything. Why didn't I think of looking for it? Let's all go to WP:SCHOOLS right now and see what we find.

"This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump."

Can't see anything about trying to revive discussion on AfD......--Stroika 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep high schools should be kept.--Konstable 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep again based on comment by Capitalistroadster. Sorry to sound like broken record here. Yamaguchi先生 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalistroadster makes very valid points... P.S. Stroika stop being a WP:DICK.  ALKIVAR™ 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think that Stroika is being a dick. I think that you either misunderstand what AFD is for (debate, as it says at the very top of WP:AFD), or dislike hearing dissenting criticism. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with Kuzaar, WP:DICK doesn't apply here at all, but I do find Stroika's tendency to comment on nearly every keep vote as a bit peculiar. Netscott 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment- Note that I agree that it does seem a bit overbearing, but not necessarily suspect or confrontative. I sometimes have the same bad habit in AFDs that I open. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment if his response to capitalistroadster above isnt a perfect example of being a dick, well then obviously our definitions of being a dick are incompatible.  ALKIVAR™ 02:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all high-school cruft! Per Coredesat. -- Koffieyahoo 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would love to see this expanded. Joe Montana part of the football program is just icing on the cake. --JJay 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pretty obviously notable. --Rob 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep using a stretch from WP:MUSIC, in which a subject is notable if one member is notable, article meets notability. I would be on the fringe on a very weak keep, however, Joe Montona being a coach for the team, establishes notability. Yanksox 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• CommentFrom WP:Music "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is appropriate material for Joe Montana's article. I draw your attention to the discussion between myself and Netscott above. <Re-edited after response below:> I don't blame Yanksox for missing it (and I don't claim it was definitive) but some people round here think that the whole thread should be taken as read. I don't claim it settled anything definitively but to save myself typing there it is. Probing too many arguments seems to provoke disgust among some editors. --Stroika 07:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly not disgust on my part but moreso puzzlement. Netscott 14:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do read the whole thread when an AfD comes my way, I've been here long enough to know that. I looked over the article and the statements that it made, and I do believe it should be kept (FYI, I do place my opinion for "Delete," on a few schools, check out the DRV on Arborview High School), it does make some claims of notability. Schools are put under a strange scope, and really that is the fact that it can make some sort of claim of being different from similar schools. About the WP:MUSIC comment, this AfD[26] stood up because of that argument. The situation involving schools is getting really ugly, but I admit there is a slight lecinancy in favor of schools, but this article does present certain information that makes in stand out from the rest of it's own class. That is really how people should judge the scope of notability, how does this subject make itself different from other similiar subjects? Yanksox 11:43, 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 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Copy (1998 film)

A google search suggests that this isn't notable. I think it might be a student film (see the Chapman University link). I started to clean this up, before realising there's little point. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable student film. --Coredesat 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and since very little chance this article will develop into anything.Pascal.Tesson 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, carbon copy of above reasoning. --DaveG12345 23:47, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucian Wintrich

Non notable host of Internet talkshow, total of 4 Google hits Fram 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable figure. --Coredesat 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP is also not a free webhost for resumes. Tychocat 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has recieved notibility in the past year in both cult film and radio, google has alot of history creamsoda 06:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Google had zilch history of notability when I looked just now. --DaveG12345 23:51, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PatriotNet

NN ISP advertisement, fails WP:WEB. Compare those listed in Category:Online service providers. —Lamentation :( 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn and advertisement. I think it fails WP:CORP also. Tychocat 09:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, failes WP:CORP.--Isotope23 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 23:54, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KickBoxer Snaps Leg

Non notable, not encyclopedic: Only Google hit is a redirect from another Wikipedia article (Vicious Leg Break Fram 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete already tried to prod this stub. There isn't even any information on the fight this occured in! ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, link goes to straight to a video-sales site so it looks like this is an advertisement as well. Tychocat 10:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. --Coredesat 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, primarily because your logic is flawed: I added the link to the "advertising site" in an attempt to identify the fight. It obviously happened. The question, I would think, would be more about "importance". Please, let us elevate the conversation. You guys frequently put the contributor in the vise between having strictly non-commerical links and documenting assertions. I guess the more fundamental question is: does this article assert any important facts? You could argue that the only assertion is: "You can break your leg really bad if you kickbox and the other guy blocks with his knee". Oh, and the viral video thing. Compared to most articles about music songs and tracks, at least such a fact might possibly be of some use to the child in Africa that Jimbo keeps saying that the encyclopedia is for. -- 64.175.42.87 17:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable and probably nonencyclopedic. If, at some point, there's a List of Popular Viral Videos that doesn't get AfD'ed itself, this can be added there. -- Docether 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Docether. --DaveG12345 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Vicious Leg Break, mentioned by the nom, looks the same kind of inconsequential article, which could just as easily have remained where it was, as a link to the external site from within the Sid Eudy main article describing the incident. --DaveG12345 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is the same category as Icy Hot Stuntaz or the Star Wars kid and could have as much context as the former if its left up and someone who knows the story tells it. As for the name there are many versions out there of the same clip, all with different name. Looking at youtube with the words kickboxer breaks you get at least 20 different videoes and searching google with kickboxing leg break gets thousands of hits. If anything it should be moved to a name that gets the most google hits ... if that's a naming convention.--Abaddon 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1,190 Google hits, but only 74 distinct ones. Still not a lot, and not enough to warrant inclusion. "Kickboxer Leg Break" gives 176 hits and 38 distinct ones. When checking the number of hits for a phrase (or any fixed combination of words), be certain to put " " around them. This will always heavily reduce the number of hits. Secondly, try to find if you have actually a large number of distinct Google hits. Often, Google will have many pages from the same source (like a forum or whatever), that will count a many hist but are in fact only one website. Thus, Kickboxing Leg Break gives 152,000 hits, "Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1270 (this time, the number varies with every serach), and going to page 10 of the results gives me that there are only 74 distinct results. Anyway, enough Google lessons, the result is that it is not notable anyway you name it. Fram 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet other internet memes like:

"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits

"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits

"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits

Although its not on Wikipedia look at the video clip of that guy who's head goes up an elephant's ass. Everyone has seen it but it only gets 400 hits on google Your google hit number theory is flawed, some video clips are so and popular that, like a virus, they change their name and are hard to track down. Google results shouldn't be the be all and end all of whether or not an article stays.--Abaddon 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think that some of them (like Anabukinchan) are different, because they have a background (verifiable), a story beyond "it's funny". Secondly, many memes are discussed for deletion, and some are kept while others (most) are deleted. And if they always change their name and are hard to track down, how will you encyclopedize them? Give them a random name? Create fifty slightly different names and make them all redirects? And then, when people who come looking for it (and thus probably have seen the movie) find it here, all they read is what they knew all along, as their is nothing encyclopedic that can be said (or has been said at least) about this videoclip. Finally, another Google lesson: don't write elephant's-ass and then come here to show that it has only 400 hits. Written in your traditional way, it has 4,260,000 hits, and written in the strict way, it has no hits (none at all). I have no idea under what name that video is known (I don't know it and don't care for it), but obviously not that one. Fram 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This meme has no content ... YET. If it's left on here someone will come on who knows the story and fill in the background. That's the point of a stub is it not? Someone will come on wikipedia looking for info on the kickboxing clip and find it either by searching or in the list of Internet memes. Already people have added clues and content i.e. the link in the ring what kind of leg break it was, etc. As for the elephants head I was just following YOUR google search requirements. If I follow your NEW way of searching google then kick boxer breaks leg gets hundreds of thousands of google hits again. While like you said "head into elephant's ass" gets 0 hits. Just becauce YOU don't know about something and don't care for its subject matter isn't grounds for deletion. --Abaddon 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And just because something is indexed by Google doesn't mean that it is in any way important or deserving of an article. Try to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than YouTube. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look again, you weren't following my Google search requitements at all, you didn't put "'s around the search term. As for the rest, we'll let the community decide if it is worthy of inclusion or not... Fram 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that we shouldn't use some flawed Google index number that someone thought up off the top of their head. While Wikipedia isn't Youtube it is an encyclopedia. Not an encyclopedia of just stodgy scientific data but also an encyclopedia of Popular culture too. This is were this Internet Meme fits in. It may not appeal to everyone but it's still Wikipedia worthy.

If your jab at the Google index is intended at me, could you then please just explain how it is flawed? Fram 10:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For reasons you've already pointed out. This clip gets more hits than other Wikipedia internet memes like:

"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits

"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits

"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits

Famous "head into elephant's ass" clip gets 0 hits

• While Wikipedia isn't Youtube it is an encyclopedia. Not an encyclopedia of just stodgy scientific data but also an encyclopedia of Popular culture too. This is were this Internet Meme fits in. An article shouldn't be deleted just because someone doesn't care for it.--Abaddon 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've seen the clip before, Wikipedia should include Popular Culture references like this, let it be--Esemono 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Esemono is User:8888888888 (aka Abaddon) ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'm saying again, Wikipedia should include Popular Culture references like this, let it be--Esemono 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia does not need to have an article for every video clip on the Internet. Delete. Also see: afd for Vicious Leg Break. -- The Anome 14:26, 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 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hansen Gress Corporation

Non notable company: only Google hits are to own website. Even "Hansen Gress" gives just 64 Google hits (14 distinct ones). Fram 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and for being an advertisement. Tychocat 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:CORP#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations part 1. See Talk:ECustoms for external links to non-trivial published works. BigNate37 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What has the talk of ECustoms to do with Hansen Gress Corporation? Fram 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, well, it means I've been spending too much time on the wiki and obviously can't read clearly anymore. BigNate37 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, most non-own Ghits were "Website designed by..." credits on some previous customers' sites. --DaveG12345 00:16, 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 deleted per A7. User:Angr 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bleeding Irish

Non-notable band, fails WP:Music: Just one EP released Huon 10:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Prod was removed by anon IP without comment. Huon 10:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clearly non notable Fram 10:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Only 18 unique Google hits, no www.allmusic.com entry. Borderline speedy deletion material. Also this isn't a vote, so you don't need to seperate the nomination and your recomendation for what to do with the article. - brenneman ^{L} 11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, seeing as the article is fairly new and there is no assertion of notability. --Coredesat 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Coredesat, fails WP:MUSIC and never claims otherwise. --DaveG12345 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Failing the guidelines is different from being a speedy candidate. - brenneman ^{L} 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No label, no info on nationwide touring, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Anybody else notice that their myspace page refers to Wikipedia for more information? --Joelmills 02:37, 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 Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Brydges

He won £1,000,000 and that is all, I couldn't find any additional information about him, I guess he hasn't done anything special with this money thus not making him very notable. It's a stub because there's nothing else notable enough to write about. Andeh 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - everything here is on the show's article. Anand^(talk) 11:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Some of the other million-pound/million-dollar winners may need to be checked for other notability, as well. --Coredesat 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Of the other UK winners, the first one and the first man (so, um, second one) to win it also had success in another TV quizzes renowned for being pretty difficult. This winner - Pat Gibson - also won another tough TV quiz, but it seems to read like a puff-piece (the "common consent" section in particular) - prob needs a citations/NPOV tag. --DaveG12345 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Have added {facts} --DaveG12345 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Coredesat. Not notable beyond WWTBAM. --DaveG12345 00:29, 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. Kimchi.sg 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synthetic Paraffinic Hydrocarbon

Reads like a copyvio. Nothing links here, and nothing links from here. It is a mess that seems non-recoverable. Bduke 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This really does look as if it has been copied, badly, from some hazard web site. I really do not think it is recoverable. --Bduke 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A8 - copyvio. --Coredesat 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat talk 12:01, 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 keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Tobinick

Fellow who owns a patent for using an expensive drug for back pain. No indication that this warrants WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF. Tevildo 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A couple of minutes of searching shows multiple non-trivial articles about him ( related to the drug ) numerous papers in what appear to be peer reviewed journals. Holds 17 US patents. Certainly more notable than most professors ( I searched for one I knew and the poor guy is almost anonymous ) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If so, the information needs to go in the article to bring him within the guidelines. Tevildo 13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Seems notable enough, per Peripitus. --Coredesat 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Patent holders are a dime-a-dozen. Pubmed shows three hits under Tobinick EL and four hits under Tobinick E. Of these seven, only the 1978 study involved collaboration with truly well-published researchers. The 1987 hit appears to be a review article and the 2004 hit appears to be a letter to the editor... neither are "research". Of the other four referring to etanercept, two were case reports (both n=2), one was a review of 20 charts, and the other was a review of 143 charts... all from his private practice. This is not impressive for someone who has been "actively involved in research and teaching for years" as some of the Google hits state. -AED 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)edited 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Searching reveals significant contributions regarding novel methods of use of anti-TNF therapeutics in Neurology, including a recent review article on the cerebrospinal venous system that was selected as a CME article, as well as a new article (accessible on Medscape) on TNF modulation for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease, a recent presentation at the Karolinska Institutet, and he is a selected speaker at the 7th Intl Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery. Pubmed shows seven articles (search Tobinick). tnfinfo 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, there is obviously some dispute as to whether or not his contributions are significant. That is why the AfD exists. In the absence of a substantial body of research, a pilot study posted on webMD's online journal isn't convincing. Secondly, writing a continuing medical education (CME) review, or presenting one in person, is not a significant contribution. Plenty of non-notable people do this. Similarly, answering a "call for papers" to present a short lecture at a conference does not make a person notable. A Google search for "Karolinska Institutet" + "Tobinick" gets five unique hits (all appear to be PR generated from Tobinick's office) and "Alzheimer's Drug Discovery" + "Tobinick" gets none. -AED 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I get five hits for "Edward Tobinick" on Pubmed.[27] Non-notable. I agree with the comments (above) by AED. Nephron  T|C 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The agenda for the 7th International Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery is online at www.aging-institute.org/i/isoa/c_20061012_agenda.pdf. His cancer work has been cited by researchers from the University of Minnesota (see Wacnik, et. al. PMID 15802198 and Anderson and colleagues from Centocor (two articles on Pubmed, "Therapeutic potential of cytokine and chemokine antagonists in cancer therapy, PMID 16524718, and PMID 15251122. His work on neuropathic pain has been cited in a review by Sommer "Mechanisms of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Cytokines", Drug Discovery Today, Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2004 pp. 441-448. His recent study on TNF modulation for Alzheimer's was discussed in an editorial written by a Johns Hopkins researcher "Editorial: Cytokine Inhibition for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease" MedGenMed Neurology & Neurosurgery, vol 8, issue 1, April 26, 2006. See also a search done at www.scirus.com for "Tobinick". A search on Pubmed for "Tobinick" gives 7 hits. -tnfinfo 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BIO and WP:PROF are pretty clear on the relevant standards. Giving a 20 minute lecture at a conference does not make a person notable or verify notability; I've been to plenty of CME given by lecturers who regularly respond to a "call for papers". Similarly, having a study footnoted in someone else's study (or having it mentioned in an editorial) does not establish notability of the research or the researcher. All it establishes is that the study was at least remotely related to the research of others. -AED 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: With regard to WP:PROF, please note criteria 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory, or idea". With the revision of the biography, to include additional information, verifiable by search of the U.S. patent office and published articles, the WP:BIO, WP:PROF appear to be met. tnfinfo 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:PROF, "important" is the key word: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." He is not. If he was, then it is likely that some of the other criteria in WP:PROF would be met, too! -AED 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)edited22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Is AED arguing that a radically new approach, based on a recombinant DNA therapeutic, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease is not important? Please note that AED's statement above about the (non)importance of the study ("...having it mentioned in an editorial") may be interpreted to have mischaracterized the editorial - rather than "mentioning it" the editorial [28] appears to have been written solely to discuss this single study [29], most likely because of the importance of the scientific issues which were raised by publication of the study. With regard to originating this treatment method, the U.S. patents awarded (6,015,557; 6,177,077 [30]; and 6,982,089 [31]) verify that the identity of the inventor is known. Therefore this element 5 of WP:PROF is satisfied, and the WP:PROF guideline would appear to be met, because the guideline states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable". tnfinfo 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, your question contains a false premise: that the approach is important because it is radically new. Tobinick did NOT originate the idea that the suppression of cytokine activity may help Alzheimer's patients! Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that his approach has yet had a significant impact on the area of medicine and research concerned with treating Alzheimer's disease. One editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal does not suffice. Important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. -AED 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment: Let's stick to the facts. Dr. Tobinick did invent the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's Disease, and the specific patented method of administration, perispinal injection, that was used in the recently published article which he and his colleagues (two professors of Neurology and a rheumatologist) authored. All of this information is verifiable, since the patents, and the article are all documented above. With respect to AED's comment that "this one has not (generated a lot of buzz)" what does he think the nearly full-page article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 19, 2006 about Dr. Tobinick's new Alzheimer's treatment was [32]? With respect to verifying inventorship, the following is a direct quote from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”"[33].tnfinfo 09:19 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 11:58 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have stuck to the facts. No one is denying that the man holds patents for the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's, but the fact is that important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. The presence of an editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal and an article in the Health section of the LATimes.com is not "lots of buzz".

• Comment: Perhaps you just have not been aware of the facts. Follow-up articles have been published regarding Dr. Tobinick's new discovery for Alzheimer's in newspapers around the country, including Baltimore (Baltimore Sun), Washington state, and Florida, just to mention a few. And this does not even include Dr. Tobinick's other published work, which is being cited by an increasing number of researchers around the world. Just as an example, his original concept of using TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza (see U.S. patent 6,419,934 from September 2000) is now supported by publications from the CDC in 2005 [34] and is cited in a new publication just this week [35]. He has also co-authored a well-received medical textbook [36] and [37] tnfinfo 18:38 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 23:10 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) "Published" in newspapers is not the same as being published in academic journals. 2) As discussed earlier on this page, he has very little published work. 3) As discussed earlier on this page, having your study appear as a footnote in someone else's study doesn't make you notable. 4) You're manufacturing claims. Tobinick was not the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating viruses, so its disingenuous to imply that others were following his work. I certainly don't see his TNF-inhibition work cited in the CDC publication. In fact, I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza on PubMed or in his patent . 5) Contributing to a textbook doesn't satisfy #4 of WP:PROFTEST. -AED 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)edited 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Meets another criteria for WP:BIO: "Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", see two reviews cited above [38] and [39] and a third review [40]. Please note that Dr. Tobinick is one of four authors of this textbook, see [41]. On another point, #4, AED is wrong also, Dr. Tobinick's TNF inhibition article on SARS specifically discusses avian influenza; this is verifiable by just reading the article, available at: [42]. Since AED has now given an incorrect opinion on so many points here, there seems little point to correct him further. (He was, however, right about patent 6419434; this was a typo, which should have been -934, and has been corrected). On another note, Dr. Tobinick has individually been awarded 17 U.S. patents (compare all faculty at Caltech combined, who were awarded 139 patents in 2003 [43]. By this criteria alone he meets WP:PROF. tnfinfo 23:30 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) So now he's a notable author on the basis of his contributions to a medical textbook on skin surgery?! 2) You claimed that Tobinick was the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating avian influenza (which is false), so I wrote: "I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza". As I pointed out in my first post here, Tobinick's "article" is a letter to the editor! 3) Yep... CalTech faculty combined for 139 patents in a year and Tobinick has 17 in his life. Probably for good reason, there is no "patent criteria" on WP:PROF, though. -AED 07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Examination of U.S. patent 6,419,934 [44] (see claim 14: "A method for inhibiting the action of TNF in accordance with claim 1, wherein the step of administering said dosage level is for treating influenza") verifies that Tobinick originated the concept of TNF inhibition for treatment of influenza. AED appears to be violating WP:NPOV by posting verifiably false statements. In addition, the Caltech press release [45] states that "Caltech ranks No. 2 among American universities in number of patents awarded in 2003" with 139 patents awarded to a total of 345 faculty members, equivalent to 0.4 patents per faculty member per year. To return to TNF inhibiton for influenza, a concept Dr. Tobinick originated, is AED arguing that this is of no importance, even after publications from the CDC [46] and others [47] [48] have documented the important role which TNF plays in the Acute respiratory distress syndrome which is responsible for the high mortality in H5N1 influenza avian influenza. Is AED saying that the concept that Dr. Tobinick originated, as documented above, which may, as described, potentially reduce H5N1 mortality, is not important, when the world is facing a possible H5N1 epidemic? tnfinfo 06:00 PDT, 02 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per Peripitus. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historically speaking, after avian flu hits America (thats a when and not an if) this person could end up being as notable as Louis Pasteur. No reason currently to delete this, but it does need quite a bit of expert attention and cleanup towards layperson speak. Ste4k 06:28, 3 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Surprise

Google search 150 unique hits. No news The first link is to www.praxis brainchild of on Lanir, and the second link csel.eng.ohio-state.edu Emily S. Patterson October 8-12, 2001 refers to Lanir, Z. (1986). "Fundamental Surprise. Eugene, Oregon: Decision Research." Looking at the other contributions that the editors of this article are making, this appears to be advertising. Delete.
brenneman ^{L} 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR. G1 is tempting, but no... Tevildo 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR, borderline patent nonsense (but not quite). --Coredesat 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Cognitive dissonance, which is roughly in the same area but is better developed. Ansell 00:36, 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 keep the rewrite. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Island Home

Song lyrics/poem with no context or explaination. Not relevant content for wikipedia. --11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Ladybirdintheuk

• Speedy delete per CSD-A1 - no context. This appears to be someone's version of "My Island Home" by Christine Anu. It's not a full copyvio, because the lyrics aren't the same. --Coredesat 11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Coredesat. Article tells us nothing about the subject. Ydam 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dunno about Speedy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Song lyrics (even original ones) are non-encyclopedic. -- Docether 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This song is a notable Australian song first performed by the Warumpi Band and then covered by Christine Anu. It is one of the best known pieces of indigenous music. On the other hand, it is copyvio at the moment but I would support keeping a legitimate article on the subject. This is the original version by the Warumpi Band.Capitalistroadster 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cleanup looks good. If you move this to the actual body of the article, I'll revise my opinion to "keep". -- Docether 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Capitalistroadster. I understand that this song is widely approved of by the Torres Strait people and it deserves an article. --Bduke 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - If notable and to be rescued - can we have a {{hang on}} type of tag? If nobody is going to have a go then I would support deletion in its present form.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• I will be working on cleaning it up. The Anu version was an Australasian Performing Rights Association Song of the Year back in the mid 1990's so is certainly significant enough for an article. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• As a copyright problem, this article should be dealt with as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This is not a criterion for speedy deletion (even if we invoked commercial content, the article is more than 48 hours old). Similarly it is not an AfD discussion, we shouldn't be debating a hypothetical article. Information about the song can be found at http://www.neilmurray.com.au/pages/song_islandhome.html

The lyrics can be found at http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/oztabs/uvw/WarumpiBand/My%20Island%20Home.txt

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 June 27/Articles suggest this AfD be closed --A Y Arktos\^talk 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• see My Island Home/Temp for work in progress on revised version by Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote that My Island Home/Temp be moved to main article and Kept, Capitalistroadster has done a great job of cleaning it up. -- Chuq 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ladybirdintheuk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Copyright problems can't be speedied once the article is more than 48 hours. Support the move once past the 4th of July, deleting past versions of the article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move My Island Home/Temp to My Island Home and Keep. Great looking new article. (Best end to an AfD is a better article kept.) Eluchil404 17:42, 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 all. Proto///type 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomfield Road, Blackpool

These pages would appear to be the beginnings of potential listcruft. Can individual streets of questionable note in a town really justify individual articles? Matticus78 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not quite an A7. Having the football stadium on it might be regarded as an assertion of notability, but we don't have an article on White Hart Lane that covers the road rather than the stadium. Tevildo 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article on Blackpool F.C. itself already makes mention of the road, and there is already a perfectly good article on Bloomfield Road (the stadium specifically, rather than the road). Can't see the merit of a separate article on the road unless there's anything else of note about it. -- Matticus78 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

• Preston New Road, Blackpool
• Whitegate Drive, Blackpool

• • Speedy A7 both. No assertion of notability. Tevildo 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per non notable streets, CSD:A7 only applies to people and groups of people though does it not?. Ydam 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Preston New Road, Blackpool could be deleted under {{Template:db-empty}}, since the entire content is "Preston New Road is a major road in the UK town of Blackpool", essentially repeating the title.

• Delete all, non-notable streets. Not sure A7 applies here. --Coredesat 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. Not even a little bit notable. Mr Stephen 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in any way that I can see.--MichaelMaggs 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (Bloomfield Road, Blackpool to become redirect.) I have been along all these roads and I can confirm from personal experience that they are non-notable! -- RHaworth 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Many apologies for any confusion regarding the creation of those articles. I created them only yesterday as stubs (I do not yet know how to insert the 'this article is a stub...' bit at the bottom), which need to be expanded. All those roads are significant in Blackpool and the surrounding area, and all would be well-known to those who live here. They are all A or B roads (I have no intention of creating an article for every single road in Blackpool or anywhere else). Furthermore, all, but most particularly Whitegate Drive, have some historical importance for the town. Whitegate Drive, for example, is one of the oldest main roads in the area, and as is hinted at (but I admit not yet referenced), is or has been the location of a number of important buildings. I have not read any rule or policy that would call for its deletion; it needs improving, and I welcome any constructive criticism; I was not sure whether to create a single article on all the roads or geography of the town, and perhaps that would be a less controversial decision. My further intention was to eventually create a number of coherent and informative articles on all aspects of the town. If there is no article on White Hart Lane, or any other road with a major landmark on it, that does not mean the article on Bloomfield Road (which is significant for other reasons, though maybe not enough to warrant a whole article to itself should be deleted - I would argue that perhaps those other roads do deserve an article. It might appear that articles on Blackpool are being unfairly proliferated and expanded, but you can only write about what you know. It is for the inhabitants of other towns to write about their landmarks. Sorry to have caused any offence or confusion. Scyrene 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps a valid point. We have Sepulveda Boulevard, after all, which doesn't appear to be any more notable than these streets - but it's in Los Angeles rather than Blackpool. On the other hand, New York seems to be containing its minor streets quite well in Manhattan streets, 23-42. My opinion is still *Weak Delete, but it's not as trivial an issue as it might appear at first. Tevildo 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Except Sepulveda Boulevard is a n\major street 30 miles (50 km) long, the longest in car-crazy L.A., and passes a lot of L.A. landmarks (hmm, it goes by the Getty Center). --Calton | Talk 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All. Unnotable in themselves, can confirm for sure. Considered a redirect to Blackpool FC for Bloomfield Road, Blackpool, but guess what - Bloomfield Road already exists (and is valid IMO). --DaveG12345 00:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all until and unless some actual notability is established. It's worth noting that batch of similiar articles created at the same time have already been speedily deleted {{Template:db-empty}}, since their contents were all of the form "NAME, Blackpool: NAME is a major road in the UK town of Blackpool." --Calton | Talk 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Retain All It is not possible to assess notability until the articles are posted. That is the time to decide on deletion, not now. The author asserts that they at present stubs; let him wtite the definitive articles and decide then.--Anthony.bradbury 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All per plea from article creator. I'll WP:AGF and assume that the article creator will now keep his promise to make these into reasonable articles as soon as practicable (although I would urge him to consider merging them into a single article). Herostratus 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whitegate Drive, Blackpool is four months old now. Have a look and see what you think to it. --Mr Stephen 23:20, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Advertising

The clue is surely in the name. This is blatant e-Advertsing. Fiddle Faddle 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads like spam, probably is spam.--Andeh 12:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN music promoter. Fails WP:CORP. Tevildo 12:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per spamvertising and NN as well Ydam 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. --Coredesat 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the spam --Splette ^Talk 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No context, misleading title, and for a blatant ad, it doesn't even contain many buzzwords for me to mock. That's so unfair. Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN adspam. What is it with firms founded two months ago suddenly deciding they need to be in an encyclopedia to mark the occasion? --DaveG12345 00:50, 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 19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield United Full Record 1889-2006

No real content. Original editors only edits were to this page early in March. It could be completed but the start is so small and the material would be better in the main article on Sheffield United. Bduke 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Not sure theres really anything worth merging. Ydam 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - but I should point out that the article has no AfD tag. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Ydam 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. --Coredesat 13:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a test page, so a speedy delete under CSD G2. Mr Stephen 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• If someome took this on seriously, could be the basis of a superb set of articles, but in the state it is in, and the fact no-one is working to really get it off the ground, Delete. fchd 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Woah, better nip this one in the bud. Per Ydam. --DaveG12345 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Given the lengthy history of this team, a separate article detailing its year-to-year record would be useful. But individual game matches? I can't wait to see the Cincinatti Reds individual game record article :o Resolute 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Resolute. Incidentally Resolute, I made that argument about Eastern Suburbs 1912 Season (and redux), but sanity lost to stupidity. Again. -- GWO

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 close, redirects are cheap, if for some reason you want it deleted, you can take it to RfD, but I think it should stay. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Iltaf Sheikh

initial spelling mistake, article for mohamed Iltaf Sheikh already exists. no need to use this page simply to redirect Lordb 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close and move to WP:RFD. –Dicty (T/C) 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, RfD be over yonder. --Coredesat 13:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as a redirect as it was before this edit: [49]. Don't take this to RfD. There was nothing wrong with the redirect. There was no need to remove it and replace it by an afd2 tag. This is a plausible spelling mistake. --Lambiam^Talk 15:49, 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 No Consensus, though I would have liked to see it deleted - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

Article is POV (note the word blatant used a couple of times in it for example) and really doesn't deserve it's own article. At the very least it should be moverd to a subsection on the main worldcup 2006 article-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 13:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Contrary to my nom above now Very very weak keep it does read better now but I still think it is better suited in another article, on it's own it just looks like alot of POV rather than say criticism in a balanced article about refereeing at the world cup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete blantant POV. Article is not at the moment long enough to justify seperation from its parent article. Nothing salvagable content to merge either Ydam 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Article is now completly changed from the version that was originally nominated. All the issues that I had at the start have now been pretty much resolved. (I'm sure the remiaining NPOV issues will take care of themselves in time) Ydam 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatantly fails WP:NPOV. Absolutely nothing here worth merging. --Coredesat 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although something on the 3 yellow card controversy (as this can be objectively viewed) is possibly worth having (a subsection on main WC page?).--Binnor 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify. There is value is pointing out that certain events generated controversy. This can be done in a NPOV fashion. However, this article needs to focus on a factual recounting of the fact that there was controversy, not re-hashing the controversies themselves. For example - 1. Graham Poll mistakenly failed to send off a player after the 2nd Yellow. This generated the following controversy: a. Failure of the 4th referee to catch this {cite sources here}. 2. Ghana was awarded a penalty shot in injury time of the first half. This generated the following controversy: a. Video replays seemed to indicate misapplication of the rule. {cite sources here}. This would be a useful and informative article. The hard part is the subjective evaluation of what events should be included, but that's nothing new to wikipedia, now is it? --NThurston 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for now at least. It could probably be rewritten after the event is complete, its too early for such an article. --Boochan 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and adapt to NPOV standards. Also, another good idea would be to describe the alleged controversies in chronological order, instead of just mentioning them in passing. A more formal approach, with information such as date, time, and location of the match, as well as venue names etc would definitely help. It could be like a "controversy recap" in that it could provide the contentious referee calls made throughout the 2006 WC. As NThurston said, there is value in mentioning the controversial plays and calls, but it must be done in an organized manner and in keeping with NPOV rules. --macgirl 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it serves no real purpose and is very POV orientated. - Deathrocker 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, it serves a purpose although is currently very badly written. Cleanup and keep. --Guinnog 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have begun to wikify and restructure, but this article needs more content. Feel free to add your info, as well as to re-evaluate with new NPOV structure and format. --204.113.19.8 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This anonymous comment was made by NThurston who forgot to login.
• Keep or at the very least merge, for example this year's Cup has been marred by an inordinate amount of very poor refereeing. Georgeslegloupier 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, could easily end up being POV rants, but doesn't have to be. Well done it could be very informative. - Jon Stockton 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I think it can be cleaned up... --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge It can be cleaned up, and FIFA's president has now joined in criticism of the referees. However the refereeing problems are the only significant controversy so far, none of the other topics are notable. The number of yellows handed out far surpasses previous records, and the matches aren't even over yet. Xombie 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / Merge I have only read it after N Thurston's restructuring efforts, but it seems to me that the POV is in the eye of the beholder. I read it as an informative piece, and it came across that way. More detail would definately help it seem more POV though.
• Week keep / cleanup - less POV, more neutral, accurate, factual information. --Ouro 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there are human mistakes, anybody can do them. This article is very POV. Gadig 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, but cleanup or rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article's purpose seems less about information, more about whining. PHF 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In response to Starghost and Gadig's thoughts - The purpose of this article is to document that there were mistakes made and there was a lot of whining about the officiating. This is very different from actually being a POV whining page. This page should not be a forum for people to say "my team got ripped." Rather, it is to say that many people felt that a particular mistake, event or action caused a lot of discussion among followers of the tournament. I know this is a very fine distinction, but it is a very important one. I fail to see how documenting facts surrounding an argument is POV, just because it involves documenting an argument. I agree that it still needs a significant rewrite, but maintain that it is notable and can be NPOV. --204.113.19.8 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)