Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Eluchil404 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prospectus (university)

This was nominated with {{prod}} by another user. I don't agree with it, and feel that afd is more appropriate. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I came across Prospectus in April, when working on Mutual fund and related articles. Such business-topic articles are poorly represented in Wikipedia. Prospectus (a legal/financial document issued by mutual funds, or is filed with the SEC by individual companies) was lumped together in the same article with school prospectus (sent to prospective university students). The latter was unfamiliar to me, as an American. However, I did a google search on "prospectus" and found it was a common term used, particularly in Europe. So, I split the two uses of "prospectus" into separate articles and created a disambiguation page. I don't know a lot about prospectus (university) but think it should be kept, to explain this use of the term as opposed to the financial/legal term. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to add, a Google search of "prospectus + mutual fund" returns 2,850,000 results, while a search of "prospectus + university" returns 27,500,000 results. So, prospectus (university) seems like something notable. I don't know anything to expand the article, though. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef, unless someone expands the article (possibly with the history of prospectus in universities?)--TBCTaLk?!? 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. We're not Wiktionary. I'll change my mind if this gets expanded somehow. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable, but that's not the issue. The article's a stub, but it's more than a dicdef. It would be nice if someone expanded it, but if we went around deleting all our stubs, we wouldn't have very many articles left! --David.Mestel 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David.Mestel and Kmf164. College/Universtity prospectus' are well-known in the UK and Europe. I would say possibly add it to articles that need attention as I'm pretty sure there are many users that are able to bring this article above stub status (possibly by a collaborative effort involving WikiProject Universities or WikiProject Schools). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheJC (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 Jun 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep definitely notable, and as TheJC touched upon, prospectus' (prospecti?) are mass distributed by universities and private secondary schools. The article also shows potential to elevate beyond stub status, again per TheJC hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While it's a stub at the moment, this can be more than a dicdef if someone were to go into detail about the sort of things that appear in prospectuses (prospecti? ;-) ) in addition to Alternative Prospectuses that students of some colleges put out. Seb Patrick 09:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An important set of booklets that deserve an article. I'm sure it will be expanded. --Bduke 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, keep and expand, per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to something like Prospectus (education), since, as has been mentioned above, documents of this type are not restricted to universities -- they are also used by many other academic institutions, including colleges and private schools. — Haeleth Talk 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename per Haeleth's suggestion. Seems to be a topic that is easily expanded on well past the dictionary definition. Kuru ^talk 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to be a notable topic; the article just needs more work. --Doc Tropics 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Zos 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand as soon as possible. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Tachyon01 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously. Skinnyweed 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Note that though the article technically can be expanded from a dicdef, is anyone here willing to do it? Unless someone bothers to expand and clean up the article, I'm keeping my vote as delete. (I'm personally not very familiar with the subject, thus I'm not sure how to expand it)--TBCTaLk?!? 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Describes a process in useful terms - not just a definition. Shenme 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep general nomination should be discarded. OMEN 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep An important and well-known term Lurker 10:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well-known to me and, no doubt, thousands of other graduates. Without the prospectus, prospective UK university candidates would not know the variety of course structures and subjects that the UK educational system offers. They must have a rich history and are deserving of an encyclopaedic article. -- Alias Flood 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with above comments. Timrollpickering 09:35, 4 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. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Lethbridge Cowper

An upstanding member of Australian society, but I don't see anything encyclopedic in this bio NawlinWiki 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Sir Norman wins this one, nomination withdrawn per arguments below. NawlinWiki 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not an obituary site. Most obituaries reported in newspapers are of people not notable enough for Wikipedia Bwithh 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:BIO. No evidence of notability, only 7 Google results [1], some of which are from Wikipedia. Possibly also redirect to Australian Club--TBCTaLk?!? 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Google hits are a relevent criteria for someone who lived before the internet era. Kevin 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the Law Society is still active, I believe that the Internet is still a relevant criteria for this discussion--TBCTaLk?!? 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Eminent Australian lawyer and President of the Law Society. Lack of Google hits due to the fact that he died in 1987. Besides, the Google hits he does get include references in ministerial speeches at a lecture named in his honour. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Further to the above, I have read an article in the Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society published in 2000. He was the senior partner in Allen, Allen & Hemsley, Australia's leading law firm. In her book The Allens Affair, Valerie Lawson wrote Before the reign of Sir Norman Lethbridge Cowper, Allen Allen & Hemsley was a club. A good, solid gentlemen's club where the door was bolted to all but family and friends. After Norman Cowper swept the dust from the club's corners, the door was thrown open to talent. Aliens became the hub of a wheel, a network, reaching out to the world. Good schools and the right attitude still counted. But what mattered most was hard work and driven talent. Under the reign of Cowper, from the 1930s to the late 1960s, nepotism gave way to brilliance, drudgery gave way to energy.. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Some notability asserted (president of peak lawyer's body in NSW and other roles), would like to see more if there is anything. SM247^{My Talk} 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable? I strongly disagree. Btw, he has 229 google hits, not seven. --David.Mestel 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I used his full name in my Google search, which would explain the difference in the number of results. Either way, 229 results is not a lot for someone notable. Also, Cowper is not the president of the Law Society, but of the New South Wales Law Society. (Note: Since I am not an expert on the subject, I can't tell if the latter is a different organization or merely a branch of the Law Society, though either way they seem to be different)--TBCTaLk?!? 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above: president of the Law Society is notable. -- Synapse 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He's not president of the highly notable Law Society, he's president of the not really notable New South Wales Law Society. -- GWO
  • Huh? Which Law Society are you talking about? That article makes it quite clear that the law societies in each jurisdiction are separate. JPD (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the New South Wales Law Society. Your question would be better addressed to those who said You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable, or president of the Law Society is notable. -- GWO
      • You said "he's not president of the highly-notable Law Society", but there isn't only one Law Society, as that article says. He was president of the Law Society in his jurisdiction, which is notable. I see nothing to suggest that the people who said this was notable didn't understand perfectly well what "president of the Law Society" means - it is only delete votes that have suggested it could mean anything else, and at least one of those admitted that they didn't know what it was. JPD (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup notable enough for me hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note. I have started work on cleaning it up and establishing notability. For the record, Allen Allen & Hemsley is now Allens Arthur Robinson and has offices in eight Asia-Pacific countries. [2]. Cowper played a critical role in its expansion. A Google News search shows that the company is actively involved in the merger of OneSteel and Smorgon Steel and representing Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary GeneralRe. [3]

Capitalistroadster 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Capitalistroadster. President of a Law Society and a founder of the United Australia Party should be enough notability! JPD (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Clearly meets our de facto inclusion standards. Not that that's saying much. — Haeleth Talk 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: cleanup and expand with more citations. Zos 18:44, 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 delete. W.marsh 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ChicoProject, LLC.

An article about very small consulting company in a small California city, growing cruftier by the minute (it describes their dress code, for gawd's sake). They get 44 unique Google hits, so it doesn't look like they're that big even in Butte County. Calton | Talk 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. As nom mentioned, very few Google results [4]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, vanispamcrufisement. SM247^{My Talk} 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP Kevin 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, prod was removed (by author) with the talk page comment "The ChicoProject is a vastly growing business in northern california, and they have helped Chico State University's business program grow immensely, their have been alot of requests for an informative Wiki article about where they came from and exactly what they do. I tried to keep the article very unbiased and i'm not in any way trying to advertise for The ChicoProject." Kuru ^talk 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to WP:CORP nor could I find anything that would qualify. Despite the author's claims, this does read like an ad: "well known for their beautiful logos and Web work." Kuru ^talk 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN, and also as per above. Zos 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Too many of these nn articles springing up -- Alias Flood 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a vanity article. Tachyon01 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not much to add on the 15 previous good reasons. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Waste of server space, per above opinions. Alphachimp ^talk 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• move and delet not encyclopedia move to a user page or to Myspace.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Thinly veiled spamvertising (still) and the cruftiest spam I've seen, at that. (Dress code, indeed.) Grandmasterka 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For all the reasons everyone has stated above DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 00:47, June 13, 2008 (UTC)
• I changed the article to be a short blurb about the corporation until, i am going through the WP:Corp, and other articles to ensure that i do the article correctly. ~Author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.175.40 (talk • contribs) 07:55 5 July 2006

• Guy, the guideline is about the notability (and encyclopedic worthiness) of the SUBJECT ITSELF, not about whether the article has its i's dotted and its t's crossed. And your company does NOT meet WP:CORP standards, period/full-stop, and all the buffing and polishing of the article won't change that one bit. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 5 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. ugen64 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of the Beast

Unreleased homebrew game. It's crystal ball and possibly non-notable as well. Ace of Sevens 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Only 100 relevant Google results [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There are 896 for "Age of the Beast" "Beats of Rage". [6]. MetaFox 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, non-anything really Kevin 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's extremely notable. It's the sequel to the immensely popular Beats of Rage. Beats of Rage has spawned multiple engine derivitives (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR) for multiple platforms and millions of downloads between the platforms and derivitives combined - and this game and engine is the next step. The creators of the game - Senile Team - have a ton of fans. MetaFox 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a must,this is a game long time in the making and very revolutionary as homebrew 2d fighting games go. theres tons of fans who download and enjoy making games with the original engine (BOR) and its cousins (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR), it will be no diferent with this game,people will love it and it be a mistake to remove it from here. So please leave it inn, thank you. AlexDC22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep After 'Beats of Rage' this will set the standard of homebrew games. It would be ridiculous to erase this article. BDBor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.162.210.232 (talk • contribs) .

  It "will"? I think you mean it "might". You have no evidence to support your claim: past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The game might never even be finished. The ridiculous thing would be if Wikipedia published unsubstantiated hype about games that don't even have a release date yet. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. It is impossible to verify the claims in this article from reliable sources: we have only the authors' word for it. So the whole thing is crystal-balling, and cannot be kept.
  Note that having the article deleted now will in no way prevent it being recreated once the game has been released. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment There is a video available at the homepage showcasing the features of the game, and Age of the Beast: Special Edition was demoed briefly at the Midwest Gaming Classic on June 3, 2006. This makes the game just as notable for wikipedia inclusion as any unreleased video game that was demoed at the E3 gaming convention (and there's an abundance of those in wikipedia). - MetaFox 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just because the release date isn't set yet, doesn't make it a crystal ball. Muerto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.211.143.61 (talk • contribs) .

• Also they have a good track record wich should indicate that this game is the real thing....my GOD, they are the makers of beats of rage... alexdc22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep

Despite of what the 'Warning' says: Of course I came here because a friend told me that the Wikipedia entry of Age of the Beast might be deleted. And why shouldn't I make my voice heard ?

Some Facts: There is something like a release date set: Though annouced for 2006, a release in 2007 is very likely going to happen. One got to consider it's a game by semi-professional independent programmers, not a big budget major company. There will be a commercial release for SEGA Dreamcast. It's announced as a Special Edition that will peacefully coexist next to the freeware download - but still with a pressed run of estimated 7000+ units.

As others already pointed out, there is a video available showcasing the game in action: http://www.senileteam.com/downloads.php?d=12

Obviously the game is using all original graphics, sounds and music along with an extremely customizable and powerful 2D game engine. To really achieve commercial quality takes a good bit of time for a small group of people, working on the game in their spare time.

It's predecessor Beats of Rage was ported to an insane number of platforms (there even is an AMIGA and Nintendo DS port), and the SEGA Dreamcast version was downloaded several tenthousand times - alone from the website I am involved in (http://www.DCEvolution.net).

Three years after its initial release, Beats of Rage still sees updates (OpenBoR, Linux & PSP port), and there still are several promising projects in the works based on the Beats of Rage game engine:

Sailor Moon Plus (freeware, Remake of the Sailor Moon game series by BANDAI): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364

Rage of the Streets (freeware, Remake of SEGA's Streets of Rage) http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1140255667

Yumi: Samurai Warrior (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=366

GAGA Wing (original game, release details not set): http://www.dcemu.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26951

RAEL: The Redemption (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=rael_for - DCEvoCE 16:49, 30 June 2006 (CET)

• Comment - you have mis-read the 'warning'. It is intended to provoke discussion rather than simple 'keep' votes without clarification. Detailed comments such as yours are utterly welcome. Kuru ^talk 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia, she ain't a crystal ball, possibly vanity or advertising as well, highly nonnotable game - I'll quit here. WilyD 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have to believe that even if this article wasn't crystal ballism- even if the game was released now- it would still be quite non-notable. I greatly respect DCEvoCE's comments, but they haven't sufficiently convinced me of notability for this particular game. -- Kicking222 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It's an engine evolution and spiritual sequel of a game that has had millions of downloads. The video preview has been downloaded thousands of times, and the commercial special edition was previewed at one of the largest classic gaming conventions around as I mentioned above. Senile Team has a huge and loyal fan following, and has been covered in print magazines ranging from Pure to Retrogamer. I don't see how anyone can say it's not notable. - MetaFox 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Zos 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. BJK 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Maybe worthy of an article one day but not yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- Alias Flood 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tachyon01 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Senile Team, and merge the summary paragraph into the Senile Team article. The content related to Age of the Beast does not yet warrant its own article because it is too speculative, but it is relevant to note what Senile Team is currently working on. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SOFT quite clearly among other faults. I've also tagged Senile Team for deletion so I don't believe in the redirect. Also a note to the above people suggesting to keep: please note that no one here is proposing deletion on the grounds that this will not be a super fantastic popular revolutionnary kick-ass zillion downloads game. We are mostly supporting deletion because this game currently has no notability outside of its restricted fanbase. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Just because a game is not mainstream, doesn't make the fanbase restricted. Age of the Beast is one of the most anticipated games in the retro gaming community, and the retro gaming community makes up a large portion of the regular gaming community. The game was listed in the popular UK print magazine Retrogamer in issue number 8 as being one of the most anticipated upcoming games for the Sega Dreamcast. This article should have been tagged for notability instead of being tagged for deletion, because with a small bit of article expansion, acceptable references can be made that will show that the game is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. MetaFox 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per well reasoned nom Alphachimp ^talk 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. May be valid later, too early to include at this time. Denaar 18:07, 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. Proto///type 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of beat 'em ups

There's no article here. If done correctly, it will effectively be a duplicate of <<Category:Beat 'em ups>>. I'd support a re-direct. Ace of Sevens 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete list cruf (I changed the text in the nom to remove the category template) --Pboyd04 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft, made redundant due to Category:Beat 'em ups--TBCTaLk?!? 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, redundant to a category. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Made redundant by the category, but would be worth keeping if it were turned into an article discussing the format, history and style of beat 'em ups. Oh, wait, there already is one. Delete. Seb Patrick 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; lists are useful when they do things categories can't, but this one doesn't and therefore isn't. — Haeleth Talk 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant, pointless, et cetera WilyD 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Purely and simpley because lists are NOT redundent to categories. Note to closing admin, this vote probably violates wiki:point. Thought I'd mention it before anyone else did. 88.107.129.242 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (oops, not signed in, sorry, "Jcuk")
• Delete per nom. Zos 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant, completely redundant. --Tachyon01 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Beat 'em up. If this info should be in wikipedia, I think it should go here. Green caterpillar 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above, please. We don't want this one standing up again. Shenme 03:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep categories are not a replacements for lists, especially those that contain red links.  Grue  13:36, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Shift (music)

Nonnotable electronic music group; article is cut and pasted from band's website, [7] NawlinWiki 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Withdrawing nomination, nice work by User:Grutness. NawlinWiki 09:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:BAND and WP:COPYVIO. Found two bands on allmusic called Red Shift, but neither seem to be relevant. Nevermind, Red Shift seems to be an album [8] created by a moderately notable artist [9].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd rather have the article rewritten from the ground up; please note that I have no objection to an article on this subject in encyclopedic form, as there really isn't much in the way of notability concern here per Tree Biting Conspiracy. Captainktainer * Talk 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Grutness rewrote the article, and as long as the source is put in, I'm thinking Keep. Captainktainer * Talk 04:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BAND, WP:VAIN, WP:NN. Zos 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Keep: needs more work thought :p Zos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:everything it applies to. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC) - Changing to keep after Grutness rewrite. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice to new article. That is, this is a copyvio and should go, but the band are definitely notable enough for an article so I'd be very happy to see a real article in its place. Both "Faultline" and "Siren" are very good albums, BTW. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the article, removing the copyvio and making it generally more encyclopedic. Keep now. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a little more as per suggestions from Captainktainer. BTW, the band's name is "Redshift", so if kept this will need to be moved to the proper title. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 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. W.marsh 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redstarcanada

Nonnotable Canadian record label that releases all its music for free; 25 unique Ghits NawlinWiki 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find anything on allmusic, and as nom mentioned, very few Google results [10]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Same as User:Tree Biting Conspiracy said. It's not necessary article in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 18:53, 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. --JoanneB 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum aesthetics

136 matches on Google. Sentences like, "Quantum physicists these days often rely on the poetry and fiction to illustrate the subatomic nature of the universe". Reads badly aswell as un-sourced. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and possibly also WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:NEO, and WP:V. Essays don't belong on Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essays are verboten. SM247^{My Talk} 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the theory exists, see e.g. [11], so it's potentially verifiable and so forth. Notability remains a concern, as does the fact that this is an essay not an article. — Haeleth Talk 13:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN. Zos 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a review of a book called El Cadaver de Balzac: Una visión cuántica de la Literatura y el Arte (which I would guess means something like Balzac's Corpse: A quantum vision of literature and art). The article is also a copyright violation from [12]. Jll 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible original research or copyright violation. --Tachyon01 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is so amazing. The article talks about the writer, the other writer, another writer, effects, affects, politics, ... but nothing concrete about "Quantum aesthetics". It's pure gush, and likely copyvio and OR at the same time. Shenme 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Quantum Delete and also consider supporting the deletion of article Gregorio Morales by the same editor. Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BJOTD maybe (but definitely not funny). LotLE×talk 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Computerjoe's talk 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Tapir Terrific 22:59, 4 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 Deleted by Kimchi.sg as {{db-author}}. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. Joseph Hoffmann

appears to be non-notable professor and may violate WP:VAIN as the main author is User:RJOSEPHHOFFMANN Carlossuarez46 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy Fails WP:PROF. Bwithh 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is meant as cross reference/information only re C S E R. "Non-notable" has been settled in previous discussion.--RJOSEPHHOFFMANN 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is ludicrous; Hoffmann is an internationally known biblicist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.7.187 (talk • contribs)

• Note Author has repeatedly blanked the AfD notice and this article. Fan1967 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Author has blanked the article requesting deletion. So tagged. Fan1967 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge or redirect.

[edit] Great Mighty Poo

Okay, perhaps he's the second most famous singing poo in popular culture. And the scene is funny. Still, I don't think it qualifies for an article. UsaSatsui 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Conker's Bad Fur Day. NawlinWiki 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge One of the more memorable video-game bosses. I get 16,800 Google hits for "Great Mighty Poo" (in quotes). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Not interesting, enriching, or even entertaining. -- Mikeblas 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Conker's Bad Fur Day--TBCTaLk?!? 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Conker's Bad Fur Day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Conkers.Zos 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect See Boss FAQ at GameFaqs for verification. A redirect won't hurt anybody. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Conker's Bad Fur Day -- Alias Flood 23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question You know, I figured a redirect would be the right thing here...if I feel that way, do I need to bring it to AfD at all? Or can I just make it a redirect? And while I'm here, while I think a redirect is fine, I don't think there should be a "megre", since the article is...well...crap, and there's very little information to merge anyway. --UsaSatsui 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I would like for it to be kept (so that the Conker series has several character articles), I would prefer if a page for Conker characters is made instead of a redirect to one of the games. SNS 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the comment - having an article around so that another has more links is NOT a good idea. However, for your second suggestion, BE BOLD! Start a new article. You might want to look at Characters of 8-Bit Theater as an example. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Even if I did make a "Characters in the Conker series" article, wouldn't I have to wait until the discussion here closes before I can change this article into a redirect? SNS 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senate Document No. 43

There is no reference to this document in any government website, only on anti-Bush blogs. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• If User:NarrowPathPilgrim or somebody doesn't come up with some verifiable documentation or evidence on this pretty quick, then I'd say it's speedy delete. AnonMoos 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, unverifiable, more than likely a hoax. Possible G1. This user has a history of making controversial edits and violating WP:POINT, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment — The original user (NarrowPathPilgrim) has almost exclusively edited Federal Governmental articles and always from a strong consipracy theorist/tax protestor PoV, see for example their edits to Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and The Law that Never Was. Also, based on the edit to driver's licence, I wonder if they're a Zephram Stark sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 06:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: if this document is referenced by a lot of conspiracy theorists etc., then it might conceivably be notable even if it isn't real. I'd want to see some solid, reliable references to prove that before I'd consider voting to keep, though. Non-notable conspiracy theories and hoaxes don't belong here. — Haeleth Talk 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: looks like hoax, also WP:NN, and WP:V; reminds me of infowars.com/alex jones! Zos 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. --Tachyon01 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete consipracy nonsense. Gamaliel 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - was that the command to kill the Jedi? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:27, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terraspirit Swordsman

Apparently a manga character, but no context at all in article and nothing on Google but this article and its mirrors NawlinWiki 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's been plenty of time with requests for cleanup and context. -- Mikeblas 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT and WP:V. Only 719 Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same reason as everyone above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:28, 4 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. Avi 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chronicles of Awe

I quote: "The Chronicles of Awe is a fan fiction on the Lionhead Discussion Boards. It is writen by a happy senior member named HFB." I think that pretty much speaks for itself; fan fiction is very, very rarely notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this instance of it is somehow exceptional. Also unsourced, vanityish, etc. -- standard stuff, really. -- Captain Disdain 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was something to do while creating more ideas for the story. Sorry for any inconvenience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.70.157 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 June 2006

Well, there's no harm done, so don't worry about it -- it's just not encyclopedic material, that's all. -- Captain Disdain 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable fan fiction. No Google results [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfiction doesn't belong here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above n nom. Zos 19:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same reason as everyone above (WP:FICT). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:29, 4 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruffus (Irish band)

non-notable band, frequently edited with copyvio information BigHaz 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND, no relevant allmusic profile. Only 358 relevant Google results [15]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. jni 06:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-band}} candidates, WP:BAND refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NMG. PJM 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per aero (I can't spell the rest of it) Alphachimp ^talk 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds more like a promotional article than an encyclopaedic one as to be the latter, it would require notability; something that this subject lacks. -- Alias Flood 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - an anonymous user removed the AfD template on the page and re-edited it with copyvio information. I've replaced it and warned the vandal, but I would suggest that what appears to be a consensus here should be acted upon sooner rather than later. BigHaz 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rockajazz

Neologism. Searching the web for this term results in three hits. One is Wikipedia, one is on one of the artist's web pages. Mikeblas 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also OR. Tychocat 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, only 17 Google results [16]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. OMEN 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom with tremendous gusto. W guice 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NNN. PJM 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete same reason as everyone above. ALSO, note that the Talk:Rockajazz page is a planted question looking for more info, by the editor who started the whole article! -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:31, 4 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 kept No consensus Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Guam rivers

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No notability given for the list, stated or implied. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the above reasons:

List of rivers in U.S. insular areas

List of canals in the United States

List of islands in Massachusetts

I'm adding List of hospitals in Massachusetts, since it is tagged and links to this discussion, but I'm not proposing its deletion. Afonso Silva 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributor appears to like making lists. There are others, but I figure these will do for test cases, and I frankly fatigued out with the process. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I find geographic lists useful as a cross-reference. A list of PokeMon characters or Simpsons jokes? Those, I'd delete. -- Mikeblas 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete list of islands in Mass - Or at least trim it to a smaller set of them. It looks like every rock found in a puddle of water is listed there. Most of them seem to be barren and uninhabited. The rest all seem legitimate and useful enough to me. Wickethewok 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These are useful lists well worth keeping. For mine, lists of significant geographical features are generally notable. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. These lists exist for many features of many countries. They are a useful method of listing the features and subdividing them/further describing them in ways which categories cannot. They are also extremely useful since in many cases there will be numerous redlinks which - of course - cannot be categorised. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful lists that can help readers navigate through articles on related rivers--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete the list of islands in Massachusetts, the list of rivers in U.S. insular areas, and the list of Guam rivers, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Guam river article is also redundant to the list of rivers article. Keep the list of canals. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Guam rivers, as its redundant, and the Massachussetts islands for reasons above. Keep the canals. Abstain on the insular rivers. GassyGuy 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per below discussion with Sjakkalle: Keep the list of rivers in insular areas and redirect Guam rivers to that article.
• Delete and categorise and the same with the others. Viridae^Talk 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not all that happy with the list as it is since it is a bunch of unannotated redlinks, but since we don't have any articles on any of these rivers, it is not redundant with a category (since we don't have the category). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (Also I want to affirm my wish to keep List of islands in Massachusetts as well. at the moment it looks like a reasonable work in progress to produce a table over terrain and population which makes the list useful on its own.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, but it replicates information on List of rivers in U.S. insular areas. GassyGuy 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas, it sure won't be duplicated... If that is a problem I think it best to keep List of rivers in U.S. insular areas and merge/redirect List of Guam rivers with that article. Deleting these will cost us valid information until we get enough articles to make a meaningful and useful category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please note that I didn't express an opinion to delete the insular ones. I was just pointing out what it duplicated. GassyGuy 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing it out. I agree with you that List of Guam rivers is a duplicate, albeit one which would be a useful redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see three pages listed at the top, in addition to Guam rivers. How is it that I got here from List of hospitals in Massachusetts when it does not appear anywhere on this page? That's the article I'm really here voting to keep; in addition to Mass. islands now that I see it up there.
• Comment. There is no real connection between any of the articles nominated other than that they are all lists. The nominations for each should be separate as the debate will be rather disorganised causing possible difficulties for the admins. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The five lists list things that are certainly finite. Obviously, there is not an infinite number of rivers in Guam nor an infinite number of islands in Massachusetts, so, the lists are useful and can be expanded with further info. Afonso Silva 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Geographic lists are useful. Kirjtc2 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All. I've used many such lists to help fill out missing articles on geographic features. When the article list is populated or stubbed out, then add a category and drop it. Kuru ^talk 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All I can't question the lists as being useful or finite to particular editors. I do question the basic notability and encyclopedic relevance of the articles, which I believe is to the point. These articles only exist as lists, since if you stubbed the individual rivers there'd be no reason to have the stubs at all. I have a toolbox that's been very useful to me (and has finite contents), but I don't see how that rates inclusion in WP. (sorry for the belated appearance, I wasn't aware that it was done for afd nominators to also vote on their afds.) Tychocat 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that there's nothing verifiable or notable about any of the redlinked items in any of the unreleated lists you've proposed for deletion? Or are you saying that there's not content to these lists orther than being lists? I'm afraid your toolbox example does not seem to be very clear; your garage toolbox has done little to help editors on wikipedia, and would continue to be useless if it were included here - are you saying that these lists are also not helpful to finding articles to create and helping editors? There would seem to be quite a bit more to some of these lists than just 'a list' as well; the List of canals in the United States is grouped by canal functionality and operating state and also has some notations included as well. Could you please exapnd on your point a little further? I'm trying to understand your position. Kuru ^talk 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm also a little concerned that the discussion here is getting a little fragmented since each list would appear to have different problems; and with the exception of the insular/guam issue - they're all unrealted. Kuru ^talk 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm saying the articles listed for deletion only exist as lists. There's no notability stated or implied for any of the listed items, except as readers apparently have for them on a personal basis. I point out there's no reason at all to have articles on most of the individual items, they only have relevance as items on a list. And being on a list does not make them notable, nor are lists intrinsically notable. Tychocat 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm still not sure of your point here: 75% of the items in the List of canals in the United States already have articles which are more than established. I could probably create articles for the remainder that meet the notability standards for geographic locations fairly easily. The list complies with the guidelines at WP:LIST or WP:LISTS. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of geographical lists along similar lines. Again, what is your guideline for the notability of a list? All items must be notable? Most? Which guidelines are you using? Please don't think I'm being combative - that's not my intent, I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reference work so I would hope to find info on rocks, islands, rivers. That is part of our role. The lists are very well ordered and highly discriinate, but could use better references. --JJay 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per various other keep votes. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but preferably Categorize. These seem useful enough, but should really be Categories. Bwithh 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. These lists are crucial parts of what makes Wikipedia useful. Lists are articles, and are not the same as categories. Fg2 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this lists can be valuable and are above the usual listcruft. Peyna 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is beyond me how these can be seen as indiscriminate. In the case of the Guam list, I doubt that articles would be appropriate, but an enhanced list showing length, precise location etc certainly would be. Osomec 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete. An56 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the added note that these type of nominations should be seperated. Yamaguchi先生 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree. This deal of multiple articles under a single nomination is bizarre. Especially since some articles pointing to this deletion page weren't even listed on this page initially. Sahasrahla 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Vegaswikian 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the list of canals. It isn't redundant with the category because not all of the canals have articles yet, and the list is useful to someone looking for a canal -- it at least acknowledges the existence of a canal. (As an aside, I came upon that article because I was seeing if we had an article on Duck Creek Aqueduct or Whitewater Canal.) Delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas -- it's redundant with List of Guam rivers (which I vote to keep), List of Puerto Rico rivers (not up for deletion), and List of United States Virgin Islands rivers and streams (also not up for deletion). As far as List of islands in Massachusetts, I prefer to keep it, but the entries about "minor rocks" can probably go. I doubt we'll ever need an article about a minor rock. --Elkman 02:40, 5 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 userfy. Roy A.A. 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory P. Leichner

Hoax biography - nothing on Google or Amazon for this supposedly famous philosopher who has written 32 books. Funny that no university affiliation is mentioned, either. NawlinWiki 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What a remarkable coincidence that author's ID is "gregory" spelled backward. Fan1967 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Checked google scholar as well--zippo. Vanity hoax.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: NN. Zos 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity article/hoax. --Tachyon01 23:19, 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. --JoanneB 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slantize

Non-notable musician. Mikeblas 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Only 896 Google results [17] and no allmusic profile.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete word AdamBiswanger1 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as yet another nn musician Alphachimp ^talk 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 16:34, 5 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. --JoanneB 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowville Productions

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB, however you'd like to slice it. Alexa rank around 6.7 million. Mikeblas 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CORP--TBCTaLk?!? 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Alphachimp ^talk 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you vist there website and look at there number of hits this year *Over 1 million* and view there artist list they quailfy as a record company *even if it only sells rights* and as a major website. They also reresent DZK a major internet based underground indie raper and there for should be noted on wikipedia --Kylehamilton 04:05, 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. --JoanneB 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breed Different Media

Seems to be a completely non-notable company/zine. Only 17 unique ghits, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Delete with all due haste. Mak (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, also, prodded by me and de-prodded by author. Mak (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Alexa ranking of 2,138,185 [18]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - useless. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy. William Pietri 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Bjones 05:13, 4 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. --JoanneB 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Snips

Fails WP:MUSIC, he has no releases on a major label. I spot-checked a couple of collaboration claims and couldn't find references to them on the web. Nothing for sale at Amazon.com. Not in AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. As nom mentioned, no allmusic or amazon profile and few relevant Google results [19]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity advertisement for a non-notable DJ. SmartGuy 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, DJ Snips is the producer for Lowkey, who quite clearly fits the criteria. 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeanold Viskersenn (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Lowkey's three releases (as listed in the Lowkey article) are mix tapes. The article further says he hasn't yet released a "proper" album. It doesn't mention winning any awards, and so on -- so I'm not sure I understand how he "clearly mets the criteria". -- Mikeblas 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The issue at hand, though, is DJ Snips. His noteriety and work is unverifiable. -- Mikeblas 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Yeanold Viskersenn (who is the original article author). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. There's no assertion of notability present. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisonous Poets

Fails WP:MUSIC, with no albums on a major label (or notable independent label). Not at AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND. A few of the members may be mildly notable, but as nom mentioned, no allmusic profile and no albums on any notable label.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 05:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Piss off with your censorship. they exist, dont they?

• Of course. I exist, and I shouldn't get an article yet. Speedy delete as completely non-notable (and no assertion of notability in the article.) Most of these rappers don't look notable either. Grandmasterka 05:21, 4 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. --JoanneB 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thurogood Wordsmith

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, no allmusic profile. Only 72 Google results [20]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Zos 05:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 07:06, 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. --JoanneB 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grape joke

No sources, all original research it seems. I didn't really find anything of interest while Googling this - I got more results googling arbitrary things like "Pants joke". I don't really see why grapes are special in this case. Provide some sources or something to convince me or else I think its worth a delete. --Wickethewok

• Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NEO. As nom mentioned, there are few, if any, relevant Google results [21].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism referring to a non-notable type of joke. SM247^{My Talk} 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NFT, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it's not verifiable, but I did find it amusing enough. GassyGuy 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: too many reasons; see above. Zos 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's purple and Delete? Peeper 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I haven't been able to find use of this term anywhere. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:59, 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. ugen64 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nedin David (M.D.,Ph.D.)

There are no results for this person and the article should be clearly deleted. However, the article seems to contain some scientific-sounding text (I don't have time to read it). Was wondering if anyone wanted this content moved anywhere. Oldak Quill 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. Half the article also seems to be an original research essay on biology (or something related to it). Only 3 Google results [22], one of which is from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment scientific content appears to be a copyvio from here, although the site seems to be down at present. Ziggurat 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, essay, fails WP:BIO, contains copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looking at the contributions of the user who created the page... he appears to have uploaded imags taken from astralsport.com. So I visted that site, and found that it is basically webforum... one of the stories there (front page second one down)... or here is a direct link... is a story titled: "Formation of the anaphylactic and delay types of hyper sensibility zones at limiting for the organism physical loadings in sports of high achievements.", followed by the comment "published on Wikipedia". I can't find any mention of Nedin David on google (note: this edit, shortly before the creation of this article, added him to List of immunologists -- a list meant for noted immunologists. Without more information, I have to dismiss this as original research and the subject of the article as non-notable... and given the style, quite possibly WP:VANITY, WP:AUTO too. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/selling something. Seidenstud 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global funk radio

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Only 546 Google results [23] and an Alexa ranking of 1,065,836 [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable web. -- Mikeblas 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:05, 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. Avi 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Old School Radio Hour

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable internet radio program on a non-notable website. Only 8 Google results [25]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC Computerjoe's talk 16:34, 5 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. Avi 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IQcuties

Contested PROD. This article has no verifiable sources, and reads like an advertisement. See also a comment by an outside user at Talk:High IQ society. Ziggurat 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. No Alexa ranking [26]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Rhobite 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Em-jay-es 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No significance claimed or established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Site is signicant in that it is the first online dating site to utilize a test for the selection of members. Geneffects 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you verify that with reliable sources? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but not directly. A search of DMOZ for dating sites mentioning a exam or test does not turn up any that are requirements for membership. Many sites have tests, but they still accept 100% of the applicants. I have further verified this with exhaustive research Geneffects 13:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • eHarmony doesn't accept all applicants. But even if iqcuties were the only site to have a test, the article would still need to be deleted because it is not verifiable. Rhobite 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Guinnog 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No different from "graduate only" sites. --Richhoncho 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Tree Biting Conspiracy, and Sjakkalle. William Pietri 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even if something is unique, and a good idea, it is not necessarily notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seidenstud (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 June 2006 UTC.
• Keep I think the concept of a dating site using an IQ test is sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article. Lurker 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:Geneffects has posted a rebuttal at Talk:IQcuties. Ziggurat 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just some website. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:31, 5 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Improperly closed, restoring. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eon8

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

Some website thats only claim to notability is the fact that no one knows what it is for. Sounds like a brilliant marketing tactic to me. Since the only sources are the pure speculation of blogs and alike this site itself clearly fails WP:WEB.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Keep*** This was a test for people's minds, it should be stated on the page, and the last line should be finished.

Delete: Possible attempt at hijacking Wikipedia for viral marketing purposes. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=eon8 forth time this page has been recreated (I nominated for a speedy delete the first time I noticed it). This time by User:Angelinacarmen whose account I suspect to be a sock puppet. Unless "eon8" hits the mainstream press like I Love Bees a few years ago, I think it might be wise to place a page creation block on eon8 and eon8.com.

• Fails WP:WEB.
• Google hits ("eon8"): 1,750
• Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,323,027.

--  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Hooray!</sarcasm> YTMND fad in progress: eon8theinvestigation.ytmnd.com/ Expect more sock puppets on their way. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above, non-notable webpage. However, may change vote depending on what happens on July 1st, be it cyberterrorism or the release of a new video game product. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being sarcastic :D )--TBCTaLk?!? 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, As this site has not yet been confirmed to be any kind of advertising I belive this page should remain alive. Even if it is confirmed to be an advertisement it is not going to further promotion to the bussiness, and becuase it has become something of a phonomenon in terms of peeking peoples interest I believe the EON8 page should remain as a source of information of this phonomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.118.171 (talk • contribs)

User has only 3 edits, either to the article or this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webpage, horrible marketing ploy. I support protecting it from re-creation if it gets deleted, especially if July 1 comes and goes and nothing happens. In fact, if July 1 comes and goes without anything happened, I'd support speedy deletion per A1, since it will have turned out to be patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's notable, it's a big deal on the internet, there's a lot of information on it, and most importantly, we're about to find out what it is in 23 hours. TheDavesr 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, go read WP:WEB and then tell me how it meets such criteria of notability. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB miserably. Notability will be created in the mind of some pseudo-cult that, for whatever reasons, gives the website attention when it merits none, but unless the media covers it thoroughly, then it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. GassyGuy 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown ends, at least. I personally know of SO many people on the internet who have asked me what's going on and it's so much easier to link to this page. There's no reason to not leave it up for one more day and see what the impact is after the occurance.--CountCrazy007 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the countdown ends, what to do from there depends on what happens (if anything). --Bky1701 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as par it being useless. --Bky1701 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now lets just wait a day, then we can better decide what to do. --Knife720 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User's only edit is to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after it turns out to be nothing (which will be before the AFD is scheduled to close). --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until the countdown ends or more information is shed on this. It seems that this thing is getting more and more attention, thanks to the help of the YTMND made about it. And, since there's no real way of knowing what this thing is until this countdown ends, waiting seems to be the logical choice.--GenericnameI 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Netsnipe 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until July 1 if anything happens. Douglasr007 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until July 1. It doesn't hurt anything, and it may end up changing the situation.-Mance 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. website promo. jni 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete painfully non-notable. fails WP:anything --Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it is something non-notable, it has already had a significant amount of fame 66.188.253.213 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be at least an attempt at another I Love Bees. It doesn't hurt to be here, and its talk page can serve to allow discussion. Parcelbrat 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It's growing prominence and popularity on the Internet, but I dunno... —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 06:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable in some circles. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion of non-notable website. OverlordQ 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that blatant self-promotion? It's written NPOV... Redwolf24 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it's intriguing, all the info (what little there was) was congruent to its sources, and until July 1 (or June 30) we won't know anything about it's true validity as a website counting down an actual :thing:. 71.83.255.141 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How can you say this doesn't merit an entry while ilovebees does? This has become a very notable website in the past few days and should stay. --Phoenix Hacker 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, ilovebees has recieved a considerable amount of media attention, while the above website hasn't--TBCTaLk?!? 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least until the end of the countdown. Has gained plenty of popularity recently - just check the referrers list they have up. I've seen it talked about quite a few places, as well, and we won't know what it is until the countdown is up. --Guess Who 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if it wasn't notable before, it is now.... 24.9.10.235 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Short lived fad. If it sticks around more than a month, might be worth an article. -- GWO
• Keep - Not only will something happen soon, there's a bit of fame to it already on the internet. There's no need to have another "oops, we almost deleted something that was so popular it was put into a movie" debacle like what happened with Juggernaut Bitch. Scumbag 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the countdown's over, I'm curious to see exactly what this site is for.
• Wait - at least until the countdown ends, this is getting mentions on many forums, and if something worthwhile gravitates from this, then keep the article. --Zimbabweed 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least until the timer reaches zero, and we can fully understand the purpose of the website. If it turns out to be something significant, deleting it would be a bad move.Will 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. By this "logic" we need a page for every newborn baby, since they may go on to do something significant. Here's an idea: Significance first, article later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- GWO
• Keep as WillFirminger --Ood 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, so it's a mysterious website. Whoopee. The idea that we should wait until the countdown reaches zero is ridiculous; as has been noted before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; something needs to be worthwhile when the article is written, not in the future. If this is so significant and exciting, let's see it get some media coverage or huge Slashdot buzz or something that signifies that people really give a damn -- otherwise, it's just another website. -- Captain Disdain 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Forget my first comment(i removed), delete per Captain Disdain. --andrew 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait Until the timer reaches zero. Even if it is a viral markeing site, the Wikipedia page should be about the site itself, not the product (in the same way that ilovebees is about the site, not Halo 2 itself)

Delete (or speedy), block recreation. Fails WP:WEB (note: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria), also fancruft, and article is largely nonsense, original research not encylopedic and not verifiable. If it becomes part of a marketing campaign then it can go into an article about the product, if enough encylopedic content can be found. akaDruid 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete we don't need a Wiki article to publicize the hoax more. The whole thing is pure speculation/crystall ballism. It's just another Ytmnd fad made by the members.--Andeh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all advertising. — Haeleth Talk 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is not a ytmnd fad this was made before the ytmnd was there.
• Keep Wait - I agree with others: we should wait until July 1st. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Disdain. I am somehow reminded of the old joke, ""How do you keep a (FITB) in suspense?" but I am also reminded that humor and irony often do not transfer in text. Tychocat 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep: We don't know whether this is viral marketing or not. Until it is confirmed to be so, which will likely be at the end of the timer, it should remain. It should also be taken off if nothing happens after the timer ends, obviously. Additionally, this has become a big and noticable thing on internet blogs and various internet news sources.

Comment: I see no real reason why any site would be this deliberately obscure unless it was to create hype. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial observer, but with no solid information yet as to what Eon8 is, anything written in this article is mere speculation and conjecture that cannot be independently verified by anyone. Wikipedia cannot be an impartial observer if it lets itself get entangled in the hype -- we need to stay above the fray long as possible until the hype settles rather than be part of it. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Useful, interesting. Ouuplas 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove YTMND references to keep this as a legitimate article. --Frogfusious 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. We have an Haunted Apiary article for precedent if it is viral marketing. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown hits zero. It's most likely nothing, but nevertheless it is pertinent for the time being considering all the hubbub and ruckus concerning it. Once we see that it's most likely just some silly marketing campaign, we can run this thing again and see the page get axed. eszett^talk 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4. --DarkAudit 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator of this AfD is the 3rd admin who speedied this. In other words, let's just give this article its 5 days of discussion. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep until we find out more about this site. MisterCheese 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait Much is unknown about this mysterious site. If the theory about a marketing scheme for a console is true then move parts of this article to the console's article. I'm personally intrigued about this, if it turns out to be nothing then Delete. Bfscr 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Let's just create articles about every site on the Internet, just incase they might become the next Google. *sarcasm* It's just a hoax. If it's something important, than go ahead and re-create it. andrew 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But we don't know if it is something important or just a hoax. That's why we need to wait. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would say that we don't wait. It's been deleted twice already, and fails to meet notability standards. If no one knows what it's for, how can it be notable? And I don't buy the 'it's notable because no one knows what it's for' argument. --DarkAudit 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait until the countdown is past zero to decide what to do. Jdh 24 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment may I just point out that AFDs last five days so this is going to be here until the counter reaches zero regardless of whether people suggest keep or delete. Ydam 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait until the countdown ends. It's less than 12 hours away and considering there -are- people interested, maintaining what little info there is would be fitting in the stance of Wikipedia. Plus, when the counter is over and we know what will happen/happened, we can delete it or keep it as needed. (no sig to put sorry =/)

Wait until July 1st. If it turns out to be viral advertising, I would suggest a merge of all relevant information into viral marketing, provided that eon8 loses its notability following the conclusion of the countdown. Jryder 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or at least for now. This thing did generate a lot of buzz. Whatever it is, I'm buying one. At least wait till the timer ends to decide what'll happen to this page. --Nintendorulez talk 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until the time is up, then we can see if it is definately a hoax or not, so we can delete, merge, or keep. Until then, we shouldn't delete it. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep and rewrite. ILB won a place as a settled phenomenon, this should, too. Keep the reference as a service to the myriad people who just want a one stop, no-hype confirmation that the page is generally regarded as real but not true, but make it clear that wikipedia is not for speculation. Update again after it's all said and done. 18:01, 30 June (UTC)
• Wait as per above.-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect for the 10 hours remaining: Once there are some more "solid" facts on the subject, IE: What it means, sources that quote it, topics on the media, and a stance of notability, Rewrite entirely to meet WP guidelines. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This may be somthing important for all we know...and wikipedia is the only place i could find that had a colaboration of all the interent communites information on this strange site...theres more to this than viral marketing i feel

• Wait until time is up, then we could take action against it. Until then, I say we just let it be. The pointer outer 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wait - I agree with The pointer outer. Let's hold off until this countdown ends and see if there's any substance to the site or if it's just a hoax. Torinir 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait or at least take much of the information into the article on viral marketing, it's a stellar example of viral marketing execution. If it turns out to be for the new Bond film, it should be a section in the Casino Royale article. 71.200.83.199 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think all this waiting business is the way to do things. We don't customarily keep things because they might turn out to be significant; in fact, we pretty much do the exact opposite! As I said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Restoring the article if it turns out to be significant is a piece of cake. Ain't no thing. Right now, it's just a thing on the web, and not even a thing that everyone's talking about -- sure, it gets some blog action, but there's a reason why "stuff some guys said on their blogs" is not generally accepted as a Wikipedia source. It may turn out to be significant, but it may not. Point is, we don't know, which pretty much underlines the fact that it is not yet significant. The fact that a lot of us are clearly intrigued by it speaks well of these guys' ability to get people interested, but that doesn't make this site encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with no special reason to wait until the counter expires. If it's viral marketing, then Wikipedia is not a billboard for it. If it's an inside joke propagated by someone with nothing better to do, then it isn't encyclopedic. If it's a real, honest web site, then the conclusions reached by the article are still original research. I don't see any reason to keep this around. --Elkman 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see a reason not to. I think it's really interesting, and as it continues developing the Wiki article should be there to help log it. If it turns out to be nothing, then I still don't suggest deletion, but maybe merging it with an article on hoaxes or something like that. It's been around for nearly 80 days now, and I think that should give it some sort of merit. -- Phallicmic 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Phallicmic has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 71.96.194.29. Jll 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Because we do not yet know what Eon8 is, it may be something of significance. And even if it is viral advertising, should it not have a page? If Ilovebees has a page, then why not Eon8? -- 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Although this site is probably some sort of viral marketing tactic, it is good that Wikipedia has it marked as it has become a sort-of internet meme amongst forums and other communities. -- Necromancer 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's only got 8 hours left. At least let's see what happens.--Mobius Soul 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Why the heck is this even considered for deletion? You have got to be kidding me, such other sites with similar characteristics such as ilovebees.com as mentioned above has a wiki page, why not this? --User:Tooooon 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Tooooon has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 86.20.242.197. Jll 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Christ on a pogo stick. Another flurry of redlinked commenters. Is this catching or something? Delete as what I suspect is going to be a marketing ploy of some sort... it smells like one. (Considering that AfDs run five days, we'll know whether it's worth it or not anyhow.) Tony Fox (speak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is how viral marketing happens. cacophony 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This could be something big, and you know-nothings will be cowering away once it happens. I can't believe some of you think typing "NN, D" is actually hip and cool. Go find some girl (or boy) friends, you nerds. Bubby the Tour G 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the above comment betrays a gross ignorance of how Wikipedia actually works. No one's going to be cowering away once -- well, if -- it happens, because this is not a personal thing or a guessing contest or a puzzle. It just isn't about trying to predict whether this turns out to be something important. At all. -- Captain Disdain 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You're the ignorant one, buddy. This article is becoming very popular... and even if nothing happens, it still deserves a spot here. I am not ignorant as to how Wikipedia works... k? 65.34.136.176 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is a source for information, so why purge itself of its information on a topic that has little information available?

*Keep for now, and you can't accuse me of redlinked profile or lack of edits or any of those chestnuts. There are three distinct possibilities here. Possibility one: It is viral marketing, in which case it is probably notable. Possibility two: It is an elaborate hoax, which just might make it notable if enough sources pick up on it when the countdown hits 0. Possibility three: It's actually a conspiracy, which is highly unlikely, but obviously notable. We'll have more information when this thing hits 0. Crystallina 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Delete, unless for some reason it is picked up by media. Crystallina 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Possibility one: fails for advertising. Possibility two: fails WP:HOAX. Possibility three: fails WP:NPOV. All three mean delete. --DarkAudit 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, this article should remian on wiki. --Street Scholar 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Wait - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this hoax is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes here. --Jon Ace 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. Xuanwu 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is pretty useless. Protect re-creation until July 1st, when we can see if anything came of the site. It's just a giant rumour mill as is. --Doug (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oops, didn't see that this AfD would run past July 1st. I'll keep my opinion as Delete, unless something majorly useful is revealed tommorrow.--Doug (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can afford to wait until it becomes notable before we have an article about it. --William Pietri 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above/nom (way up there). If anything that is purported to happen, happens, deletion review can undelete the article. Zos 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until proven either true or a hoax. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wait per the many reasons cited above. --Rikoshi 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - SOMETHING will happen. Wikipedia should not deny the existence of this page. If eon8 turns out to be a hoax, you should STILL keep the page for the sake of wikipedia remaining the world's foremost archive of all relatively interesting stuff. Famous or not (and eon8 is becoming a fad), I want to know what's going on, and wikipedia was the first place I found that provided some explanation of the site. Since it's useful to me, keep it around, why not? 71.224.37.10 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this Strong Keep Ilrosewood 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Suspect Sockpuppet - Above User Ilrosewood has only ever edited in relation to this afd Bwithh 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for two reasons. There is clearly a huge popularity with its number of edits, and there is sufficient information to provide from the website. The speculation simply needs to be removed. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hadn't heard of it before seeing the article.--SarekOfVulcan 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to all the "Wait" voters: Our AfD policy, which makes most AfDs stay open one week, means this AfD will still be running when the clock reaches zero. Don't get too upset, and if it turns out to be notable, people will change their votes. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But we can't change our votes when we're all dead! </hardyharhar> - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I won't hold my breath. - Motor (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Wait - Wikipedia is about the only thing out there that has any information on this whole buisness. It may not have a huge traffic rating, but then again, it's realitivly new and has been generating quite a bit of buzz. If it turns out to be a lame advertising ploy, then it can just redirect to the company. But for now, it should stay. --Tiler 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is not enough information on/from the site even to warrant notability. It is clearly viral marketing, and has will be even less appropriate here when it starts selling a product in a few days. Seidenstud 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as crystal ballism, unless something totally cool happens. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just keep it. 5 and a half hours remain. if something noteable does happen you will have to rewrite the article 5 hours after it's deleted—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.198.185 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, not notable and probably viral marketing. Zantolak 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The website exists and it deserves a place in this encyclopdia. It is not a marketting ploy from what I can see especially considering there is no specific details or contact details or anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfkami (talk • contribs)

• Comment, user has two edits, including the one above. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think that this is significant enough of an internet event to warrent a spot on this "encyclopedia."--Esuriat Corinths 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User has six edits to articles. - Motor (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this comment meant as a means of invalidating my vote just because I don't feel inclined to edit Wikipedia very often? I assure you that though I haven't done many edits, it's primarily because I have had very little time to do so since I created this account. As such, turning away an opinion in this manner can be discouraging to people who are aspiring to become prominent editors.--Esuriat Corinths 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. What happens on July 1? Someone gets either fired for getting no publicity, or paid off for running a successful campaign. Who cares? Not me, and neither do the Wikipedia guidelines. It fails WP:NOR and fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep it who knows what will happen?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.98.236 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom, and all the marketing arguments. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. —Stormie 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We don't KNOW if it's viral marketing. Stop voting to delete, until the timer ends. After that, this article will become incredibly useful, or stupidly useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.159.161 (talk • contribs)
• Keep/Wait, This discussion alone proves this site's notablity. Removal prior to July 1, 2006 would not be prudent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.86.24 (talk • contribs)
• Keep/Wait, Have some patience. There is less than a day left. When the counter hits zero, then do what you will, but wait until it does. 4-5 more hours ain't gonna kill Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.238.145 (talk • contribs)
• Keep/Wait, this is definitely notable. Delete if it's viral marketing, but right now this is serious buisness. --YesIAmAnIdiot 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly, non-notable vandalism magnet. Also, it's a YTMND fad, and if Brian Peppers is any indication, YTMNDers will stop at nothing to avert VfD. They have much more spare time than we do. Thunderbunny 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am saying this just on the basis that this article is VERY useful to people, especially today and tommorow, assuming there will be an internet tommorow. Heck, I went to wikipedia to look this up. It is an event that there is so little information on that everyone wants to try to find out more. Where else to go but here?Sbloemeke
• Keep if we do not know, we should not delete. too early for afd.--Buridan 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Wait, It is clear that there is no concensus on the purpose of the website. This invalidates the argument for deleting as marketing. This is an assumption, and considering the general unpredicability of the internet, an assumption that is not well based. --70.101.178.208 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prove to me that it is not marketing. Show me how it meets any of the required criteria of WP:WEB. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd like to say wait, but in this case it's just a passing fad which is popular because it's been researched enough to make people ask themselves if it's a conspiracy or not (it isn't, you don't see MJ12 making a website and telling everyone when it'll assume control of the world). Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7, Do Not Wait, and Permanently block the IP addresses of the creators of the article for continuing to recreate the article after previous deletions as well as flagrant sockpuppetry attempt to subvert afd discussion. This is pure and relentless and appalling marketing/self-promotion abuse of wikipedia, either for yet another idiotic "enigmatic" web-based art project or for a marketing campaign. The idea of waiting for the countdown to end is absolutely ridiculous and is an invitation for more art self-promotion/viral marketing abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a cog in a marketing machine or a free billboard for "edgy" web artists. If the site does in fact turn out to be notable after the countdown ends, THEN create an article. To do so now is simply to blindly help someone promote themselves for zero encyclopedic reason. It does not matter that we don't know if the website is for commercial marketing, we DO know that is relentlessly and obnoxiously (repeatedly recreating the article and the flagrant sockpuppetry) self-promoting itself on Wikipedia without any evidence of encyclopedic notability or any notability beyond its own promotion. If we wait until July 1, we would merely be bowing to the main goal of the self-promoters, and be prostituting Wikipedia in the process. Delete, and ban the IP addresses of the creators for unacceptable and repeated abuse of Wikipedia. No mercy. Bwithh
  • Comment Self-promotors? Prove it. Noob cannon lol 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response This is a rich comment from User:Noob cannon lol whose only interest prior to this afd discussion has been creating a self-promoting article about their own or their own group's video game mod which was subsequently deleted despite much sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by Noob cannon lol and his friends in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_more_room_in_hell the afd nomination Bwithh 03:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems a bit harsh. QRX 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification Just to clarify, even if the website does turn out to be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, I would STILL strongly recommend as a matter of principle that admins ban the IPs of the creators - at least for a long period of time if not permanently. I don't think this is harsh if the community tries to protect wikipedia from relentless abuse for self-promotion as well as sockpuppetry. Bwithh 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Wait until the counter reaches zero, then we can see wether or not to take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanko (talk • contribs)
• Keep, Let's wait until the timer reaches zero. If it is something that is not noteable, then get rid of it. dposse 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wait until the timer reaches zero, like most say. This could turn out to be something big. --Akyu 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wait: Wait until the time is up. After we can tell whether to keep, merge or delete. -AndThree

• Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Quoting verbatim from the lead, Eon8.com is a website "with unknown origins and a slowly-developing purpose and function". Sounds like a fancy way of saying non-notable to me. Fails that, nevermind WP:WEB. -Fsotrain09 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible terms delete per WP:WEB and the fact that this is a non-notable phenomenon. Vote-stacking of all the above sockpuppets and blockheads saying 'Let's wait and see' is not a valid exercise as (a) this is not a vote and (b) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it isn't notable, it isn't notable. We don't create speculative articles about things that might be notable one day. Given that the website is now not available, this remnant should also be purged. Wikipedia requires more than self-published sources, and the only alternate available references are an array of forum posts. Only 176 unique Ghits for "Eon 8" (mostly unrelated) and 308 unique Ghits for "eon8" (likewise). Big WP:V problems alone merit deletion. Kill it with fire NOW. SM247^{My Talk} 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• You can do anything at Eon8.com, I mean Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait: Wait until the time is up. If it turns out to be a viral marketing ploy then merge to list of viral marketing ploys. If it's a virus then keep. There is no such thing as a "hijack" of a free encyclopedia for marketing purposes. Other articles exist about other web sites. These articles serve as marketing for said media. - m0nde 1:27 AM July 01, 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to mOnde Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:FREE. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, and that especially includes non-notable marketing and self-promotion efforts. Bwithh 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Some documentation should be available on Wikipedia about current events. You were correct to refer me to policies but I reiterate that this has become an internet event which people have been discussing ad nauseum. I do believe, however, that the page should be rigourously monitored for misuse by those who are disscussing it. m0nde 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait/Keep* At least wait until the counter reaches 0. If something notable and worthy of inclusion happens then, keep it; otherwise delete it. Xgamer4 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I can just see a bunch of fat nerds in a basement sweating profusely at this BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROSTITUTE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!. The website has created buzz. It's notable. People are coming here to "vote" not to stack anything but because they want to weigh their opinion without making an account. Are these people's opinions worth less because they're anonymous? Tokakeke 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of us, myself included, would argue that proposition. If you are only coming here to give an opinion, you are likely not familiar with Wikipedia policies. The above comments reflect this. SM247^{My Talk} 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - Don't straw-man me. I know Wikipedia policies, I feel it doesn't matter in this case due to the fact this site has spread in less than two days to pretty much everywhere. You want to berate someone for policy, look at the guy underneath who just chewed out a new user for being a "sockpuppet" (apparently someone's got a faulty definition). Too lazy to sign in, 67.188.132.146 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep\Delete*: Just keep it until it is over, then trash it. It's probably unimportant. ... ManualSearch 10:06. 30 June 2006

Comment Suspected sockpuppet - ManualSearch has only edited in relation to this afd. Bwithh 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: If only as an excellent example of viral marketing in action? 24 / 48 hours ago Google knew next to nothing about eon8. today i've lost track of the number of forums discussing it in threads that run for page after page after page! and either eon8 are being very tricksy and ramping up the intrigue as the clock ticks away, or their site has gone down under the strain of god knows how many million hits? very, very well done IMO! sepher 88.107.219.208 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Do you see what I mean by how implementing long or permanent bans on the article creators being a good idea? Bwithh

Response: should i infer anything from the indentation of your post immediately below mine? along the lines of sock/meat-puppetry? by way of general comment rather than direct reply, if there are suddenly no end of new / anonymous users offering their opinions here on this, i suspect that that's as a result of the interest generated, and not because they are all in the pockets of theplanet / eon8. that that level of interest has been generated is reason enough to keep the article, i'd have thought? sepher 88.107.219.208 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run by popularity contests. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia not a free billboard for whatever thing people are trying to create buzz for Bwithh 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'm suggesting that the number of hits / searches / threads / posts, here, and elsewhere on the net, are an indication of the widespread interest created. not that Wikipedia should be a "popularity contest" or a "billboard"? i think the "buzz" round the net is obvious. how many daft sites and anims have you seen spoofing it, or analysing it? lots, that's how many! it's an event. keep for now at least? it may be a 9 day wonder? it may just be the biggest thing since dancing hamsters!  ;) sepher 88.107.219.208 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please try to keep personal attacks out of this, as well as needless generalizations. I do not appreciate being called a self-promoter, blockhead, sockpuppet, etc. and neither do the many entrenched Wikipedians who have voted to keep this article. I am reiterating this here so it hopefully does not happen again. Crystallina 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Read this, please. SM247^{My Talk} 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Noone is calling you a sockpuppet. Noone is saying that all the keep votes are sockpuppets. But there is clearly sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on in this discussion. Bwithh 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep/Wait blah blah blah what everyone else said. This page is fun. --Liface 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete changing my vote. What a letdown. --Liface 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: it doesn't meet notability requirements (not yet, anyway), as per WP:WEB. --dsm iv tr 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I definitley think this should stay up. It's a big happening on the internet right now, and therfore needs a page to document it. At the very least, it can stay up as an example of viral marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.124.56 (talk • contribs)

• Wait until the counter reaches zero. --G0zer 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the page is just a mess of speculation. Per above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alphachimp ^talk 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wait until the counter reaches zero.Delete; what a gyp. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. This type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be useful for. I've heard of eon8 from three different sources in a matter of hours. Google is 24–48 hours behind, and Britannica obviously won't ever touch this. Where else will I be able to look for a reliable synopsis of this meme, along with thorough details as to what's been discovered? Obviously this is nothing but a viral marketing site, but I can't determine that solely by looking at the site (which is down) or forums (which are segmented and unreliable). If you want to bring the page to Wikipedia's standards, then eliminate the "crystal ball" paragraphs and stick to the core facts about this site and what it has been discovered about it. —tilde 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This website is a crystal ball, as a website of predictions. For more information, see WP:NOT. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo, keep this page. It will record a historical event in internet history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.76.103 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Interesting nothing worth keeping though Ilovebees and the AI game were innovative marketing techniques this was just a farce. --68.248.1.154 04:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It was stupid when I knew nothing about it, and it's still stupid now. Ryulong 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now. This was a rather significant incident in the last 24 hours on the internet and one that is likely to be referenced in the future. --Sauzer 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. www.eon8.com/july1statistics.gif Look, 45,000 total unique users. 6 billion people in the world. In short, this was tiny. Not notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete July 1st has come, nothing spectacular happened, this is no longer even remotely notable. syphonbyte 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the above poster. It wasn't an ad, it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't anything remotely memorable. The site will be forgotten in 2 days. --JOK3R 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, This is a classic example of a Internet phenomenon. It should be kept. dposse 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a significant event in the history of the Internet, just like ilovebees, where paranoia and human curiosity made a small insignificant website explode in popularity. --68.35.24.137 04:30, 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. Avi 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SnoSupport

Non-notable company with limited exposure. Brad101 04:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 317 Google results [27]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Zos 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ADS and WP:CORP (mere commercial use of Wikipedia). SM247^{My Talk} 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement for non-notable product KarenAnn 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The arguments here for deletion focus primarily on notability, and the rewrite hasn't provided any new assertions of that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filipino-American Christian Church

This article is about a non-notable church, the writing is of questionable neutrality and quality, and it's copied and pasted from the organization's website. [28] -Sean Hayford O'Leary 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable church. Only 272 Google results [29]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. Big time copyvio, but not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If its a "big time" copvio then wouldnt it meet CSD? I've seen an article deleted because of copvio very very fast. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, the article has been around here for more than 48 hours, thus it does not fall under the CSD A8 criteria--TBCTaLk?!? 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and writing is heavily non-neutral, mere copy. SM247^{My Talk} 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PAge has been changed where there is nothing from the website. Sanny Olojan^{My Talk} 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is no longer a copy violation and is more neutral, but it's still not especially high-quality. I also find it suspicious that this article has only been edited by one person since it was started two months ago and now another user appears out of the blue and completely rewrites it. Moreover, the original maintainer of the article hasn't touched it. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I withdraw my above accusation of sock puppetry. I'm still not satisfied that the article should remain on Wikipedia, though. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As you can see from the article the page has been redone. Still it may need a little work on it, I still think the page shoud stay on wikipedia. --Timothy Chavis 17:40, 5 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. Avi 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory M. Eichelberger

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Of these Google searches [30] [31] [32], only "Greg Eichelberger" returns any real results. He (or someone else with his name) seems to have lots of activity as an IMDB editor, but nothing that would meet WP:BIO. Also possibly a vanity article (author is User:Gregwriter). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, only 8 Google results [33]. Possibly also userfy to User:Gregwriter--TBCTaLk?!? 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. jni 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:BIO --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. SmartGuy 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gongshow

Neologism. Also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, 758 relevant Google results [34]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. I don't believe indiscriminate collection rule applies here however. hateless 05:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a proto/neologism; the definition is also an attack on a type of hockey fan, too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, but leave page name as a redirect to The Gong Show. Oldelpaso 06:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. Redirecting to The Gong Show wouldn't be a bad idea, either. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN n WP:V. Zos 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Gong Show. SM247^{My Talk} 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per SM247. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:32, 5 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. The case for deletion is very well argued and is supported by the weight of editor opinion below. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Book of Enoch

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

A fork by User:TheEditrix, one of many. A quotation from Enoch appears in the Epistle of Jude, and it is accepted scholarship that what has come down on us as the Book of Enoch is identical to the work that the author of Jude quoted from. A reference can be provided on request.

Besides, the work is called Book of Enoch, not Lost Book of Enoch, so keeping a redirect would be misleading. Dr Zak 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Though I'm not familiar on the subject, I suggest a redirect to Lost books of the Old Testament.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect: to where its relevant. Zos 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the article is problematic on several levels. Yes, there is a Pseudoepigraphical book called Enoch (which survives largely in Ethopic [Ge'ez] versions); however, no credible scholar refers to this as "the lost book of Enoch." Furthermore, no credible scholar would state that the book "may have been written by the Biblical prophet Enoch ben Jared, who was an ancestor of Noah." These books (the Pseudoepigrapha) were literary works of the :Hellenistic period. Finally, the one citation is not a scholarly source; but rather, appears to be an internet ministry. Em-jay-es 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MJS: This should be a keep. Please note that the pseudepigraphal Ethiopic book you reference is NOT the book described in the article. This article describes the original book referenced in scripture, which absolutely "may have been written by E b. J." I trust you'll reconsider your vote in light of this information. --09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. This is a thoroughly referenced article, and requires its own page for the following reasons:

• 1. As the article notes, the existing Book of Enoch may or may not be the book referenced in the Epistle of Jude.
• 2. I dispute the assertion that it is "accepted scholarship" that the two books are identical. To the contrary, there's a strong body of evidence that the existing Book of Enoch is pseudepigraphal. If so, the lost book and the pseudepigraphal book are entirely unalike. Note new Encyclopedia Britannica link confirming this position.
• 3. If the two books are the same -- a question unresolvable by modern scholarship -- the article makes clear the possibility.
• 4. Moreover, this is a daughter article to Lost books of the Old Testament. Redirecting it back to the parent would be comparable to redirecting all the individual entries for Biblical books (Book of Genesis, Gospel of Matthew, et al) back to Bible. These books are individually notable.
• 5. Re: current lack of scholarly links. This is a growing article. Note that it's only a day old. Stub it, if you believe it needs more work, but deleting an article that is already this thorough because it's not yet thorough enough is premature, at best.
• 6. Finally, if editors wish to discuss the possibility of the books being identical, the place to do that is within this article. Deleting the article makes that exercise impossible. --The Editrix 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect. This would appear to be WP:NOR in respect to the claims there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" different from existing, known works attributed to Enoch. None of the links provided suggest that anyone has a serious, scholarly opinion that there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" that is different than 1 Enoch. Claiming that because Enoch 1 is pseudepigraphal and thus cannot be this so-called "Lost Book of Enoch" is a straw-man argument. Regardless of the true authorship of Enoch 1, the author of Jude apparently accepted it as scriptural and referenced it in his work; not surprising if taken in the historical context of when Jude was written. A discussion of whether or or not there is an additional Book of Enoch that differs from 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, or 3 Enoch is a disscussion for a forum or message board, not a Wikipedia article. I would say redirect to 1 Enoch but since this was found in 1773, the title would be a misnomer.--Isotope23 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Inclined to merge (no redirect necessary) with the existing article on the Books of Enoch. Apocalyptic texts are bound to attract esoteric interpretations. This text needs to be changed to make it clear who is promoting the notion that the true text of Enoch was suppressed, and otherwise restated in a NPOV way; and if that is done I have no problem with its inclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment if that is done it needs to be sourced as well, because I couldn't find any evidience of the suggestion there is a true text that has been suppressed.--Isotope23 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Half-preserved text tend to attract speculation and conspiracy theorists, so it's imperative that any assertions made be on an adequate level of scholarship, lest the article descends into conspiracycruft. I see no proper sources there, merely websites with no scholarly aspiration. Dr Zak 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Not original research. Note sources on page. --The Editrix 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, please don't state keep again since you've already stated it once in this debate. The problem with the sources on the page is that none of them (as far as I could see) suggest there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch". They all refer to 1 Enoch. Thus, the contention there is a "lost" book constitutes original research.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By itself, my remark about the article’s title is insufficient for a deletion. However, as Wikipedia already has several articles on legitimate Enochic literature, the title Lost Book of Enoch is misleading at best and sensationalistic at worst.
Please note the following points:
1. If this book of Enoch is separate from the known books of Enoch, and exists only in the short citation found in the New Testament (Jude 14-15), as User:TheEditrix asserts; then, the book in question is hypothetical. That is, it exists only in theoretical form (the theory being: Jude had a book called “Enoch” that has since been lost).
2. The presumption that Jude had a lost book of “Enoch” is problematic for several reasons. This is because the source cited by Jude is Enoch himself, and not a book. Thus, it remains in the realm of possibility that Jude was citing an oral tradition ascribed to Enoch, or (more probable), that he is citing a book in which the character of Enoch was a major player. The best example of this second possibility is the pseudepigraphical book of Jubilees, where Enoch plays a role.
3. To state that the historical Enoch “may have been the author” sidesteps not only the above considerations, but also the basic question of whether Enoch ever existed in history (many scholars view the character as a mythical figure). Furthermore, the statement stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming scholarly opinion regarding Pseudoephigraphic writing during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (i.e. the period of the second Temple of Jerusalem). The production of literature ascribed to biblical characters was commonplace during this time period. Biblical characters (like Enoch) who lived before the time of Moses, became popular “authors” in the third, second and first centuries BCE. While it is safe to say that Enoch is the “traditional” author of a particular text, it is improper for an encyclopedia entry to state that he “may” have
4. Finally, considering that User:TheEditrix is dealing with a theoretical book cited only in the New Testament epistle of Jude, it is problematic that no New Testament scholarly works are cited. To deal with a “Lost Book of Enoch” that only presently exists in Jude 14-15, one must begin by examining Jude 14-15. What can New Testament scholarship tell us? In terms of textual-criticism; do all ancient manuscripts of the NT include the Enoch quote? Are there any textual variations? Are there anomalies in the Greek of the NT that would indicate a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic source? Does the Greek quotation match up with any present Greek translations of Enochic texts known to date?
User:TheEditrix, I am not trying to dissuade you from conducting research into extra-canonical biblical literature (and I hope you find my criticism constructive); however, the article as it stands represents WP:NOR, and does not qualify as an encyclopedia entry. Em-jay-es 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MJS's excellent reasoning. No need for a redirect, an unlikely search term (especially with the capital B). Tevildo 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MJS. --Fire Star 火星 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or better merge with Book of Enoch, that is if there is any content worth merging. Peterkingiron 23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• merge with Book of Enoch. The debate about the if the 'lost book' is the same or separate from the 'book of enoch' can be easily discussed in a 'controversy' section within the Book of Enoch article in my opinion.--P Todd 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Note massive talk page spamming [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Dr Zak 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have warned User:Dr Zak about his recent personal attacks. This article is to knew for this. Now if in a month or so, there is nothing important about htis article, then we can delete it then. False Prophet 03:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, pointing out talk page spamming is not a personal attack. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence of personal attacks. Assume good faith. --Fire Star 火星 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How "new" the article is is totally irrelevant. It is not WP:V and constitutes original research, both are grounds for deletion and nobody has put forth any sort of coherent argument why this article does not run afoul of those two policies.--Isotope23 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with False Prophet. shijeru 03:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. And please quit spamming talk pages. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but add some sources please. --Guinnog 14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete POV fork with OR. As the cited sources make clear there is neither evidence nor scholarly speculation about such a book (rather than the well known Book of Enoch). Eluchil404 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per MJS -- Avi 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediamarketing

Appears to be a neologism, though I couldn't really find a definition for the term via Google, only companies that had the word as part of their name --Gnewf 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Few relevant google results [48]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified & unreferenced proto/neologism.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, tautological jargon. "Mediamarketing is any form of marketing where a sales tactic is used to solicit clientele using mass media." How long did it take you to figure that one out? Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:17, 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. Avi 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Siegel

Nonnotable embassy spokesman. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Not a lot of relevant Google results [49]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. jni 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, fail WP:BIO--WinHunter ^(talk) 06:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---Not notable, he's the SPOKESPERSON for an EMBASSY, just because it's the Israeli embassy does not make their spokesperson deserve a wiki article.
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable person. SM247^{My Talk} 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI wrote it because sereral other Wikipedians thought an article about David Segal was worth while.Gilad Shalit links there as does, Operation Summer Rains
  Barbara Shack 12:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If anyone does find a David Siegel notable for an article a DAB page should be used to clean up the links to this article. Vegaswikian 00:26, 5 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 Closed as withdrawn by nominator.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William C. Rodgers

Looks like some people can predict the future, as evidenced by this article... --ApolloBoy 05:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Based on info at Operation Backfire (FBI) and the external link, the 2006 date is in fact a typo for 2005. However, as I have no knowledge at all about this Operation and don't feel I have any reasonable way of assessing this fellow's notability etc., I'll refrain from casting an opinion as to deletion. GassyGuy 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The typo has been corrected. The correct dates were in December 2005, as you may have guessed. Perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn, now that the dates have been corrected. TruthbringerToronto 05:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - You may withdraw the nomination, I was confused. --ApolloBoy 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above, nom wishes to withdraw AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 05:41, 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. – Avi 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George L. Dewey

This article is about an activist who ran a write-in campaign for Congress once. He is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. NatusRoma | Talk 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, only 12 relevant google results [50], some of which are from Wikipedia--TBCTaLk?!? 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this person not notable per WP:BIO, but the article may confuse people looking for Admiral George Dewey. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity biography of a non-notable person (check the article creator's userpage). Metros232 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:BIO. --Bill (who is cool!) 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSSO

• DeleteThe external link is down and a google search on Nordic School Student Organisation or NSSO doesn't bring anything up. Organization is defunct or never existed.--Esemono 14:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. As nom mentioned, very few Google results [51] (only 12)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:20, 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. – Avi 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Complete Story of the Course

This article's references mainly refer to another book and the entire article is unverifiable original research. Please see the analysis on this permanent link to the talk page of the article. In the analysis each statement of the article is analyzed. Ste4k 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well, it's about time, buddy. I was wondering what took you so long to nominate this page for deletion. (For those just tuning in, a list of the other A Course In Miracles related articles this user has nominated for deletion: Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick.)

And I contest the accusation that this page is "Original Research". This page contains the following citations:

^ Publishers Weekly article about Disappearance of the Universe Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace translation article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Miracle Distribution Center study group list Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace "Scribing of the Course" article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Attitudinal Healing homepage June 30, 2006

I have provided a link to the publisher of this book [52], and a picture of the book itself. The article hardly says anything beyond what is verifiable in other places. You may not like the sources I've provided, BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WILL YOU ADMIT THAT I'VE PROVIDED SOME? I'm getting sick of you ignoring this.

Further, if you all think that these books do not deserve their own pages, could I make an article about the most notable books on Course commentary? Where exactly would the rest of you be comfortable with these references? Should I make a small section on the main A Course In Miracles page?

Oh, and I think the article should be kept (obviously) because it is notable for being the only journalistic overview of the entire ACIM movement. -- Andrew Parodi 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case the entire ACIM movement is almos certainly not encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And Celebrity sex tape is notable? I'm so glad I've decided today is my last day editing on this site. The idea of what is notable and what isn't is so incredibly subjective that it's laughable. I think there is even an article on this site about who has breast implants and who doesn't. Actually, here it is: List of people with breast implants. It's fascinating how on one hand Wikipedia is so un-elitist that anyone can edit it, and then some editors try to turn around and act like this is an Ivy League pursuit. -- Andrew Parodi 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with ACIM. Cult-cruft. -- GWO
• Merge to ACIM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to A Course In Miracles--TBCTaLk?!? 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The publisher of the book is Fearless books, which lo and behold was founded by Patrick Miller, its author. Its amazon.com rank is 347,184 [53] (see "product detail") and having a listing there does not substantiate notability—Publish America books are listed there as well for God's sake. With regard to the references, they are used to substantiate facts about the book this book analyzes, rather than about the book itself. A Course In Miracles appears notable; this cannot piggyback onto its fame; there isn't even an assertion in this article of independent notability. Just to compare, this book returns 87 unique google hits [54], while A Course In Miracles returns 763 [55], among other independent bases. I see nothing here to merge; only the first paragraph contains relevant information for a possible merge and those facts appear to be already established in the substantial mergeto article.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Fughettaboutit's explanation. I didn't think to check Amazon.com earlier. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all self-published books and authors apart from Robert Gunther. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete indeed, with prejudice, per above. Eusebeus 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Haeleth Talk 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I concur with Fuhghettaboutit's reasoning above.--Isotope23 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. --William Pietri 21:12, 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 A7 userfied - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JC Curcio

Vanity article. Need I say more? --ApolloBoy 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Only 16 Google results [56]. Possibly also usefy to User:JCurio--TBCTaLk?!? 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy content. No encyclopedic value.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete:looks like vainity and NN. Zos 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy per above. DarthVader 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (who didn't need to say more! - total Vanity);;; Em-jay-es 07:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete:looks like vanity and NN. BlueValour 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, non-notable vanity. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy then Speedy WP:CSD A7. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'keep -- 9cds^(talk) 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Return to Love

This author of this article already has a page and a similar article was already merged into that page. Discussion with several editors determined that there wasn't any reason for this particular one of eighteen books by the author to have a page of its own. Please see the authors recently merged page at Marianne Williamson, and the discussion on that page as well. Ste4k 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Indeed, a similar article was already merged into this author's own personal page ... by you, right? Weren't you the one who merged this book's page into the author's page? And then you tried to nominate this page for "speedy deletion" and were told that you can't nominate a page for "speedy deletion" on the grounds that it had previously been deleted, unless it had actually been deleted. It hadn't been. It had simply been merged. I don't think a nominating editor can use his/her own previous merging of an article as justification for deleting the article, can they? That's basically just saying, "This page should be deleted so that I can get what I want." And as I mentioned on the talk page, I think this book deserves its own page apart from her other books because this is the one truly notable book she ever wrote. See the third-party source I quote from that mentions this book was top of the Publisher's Weekly list for eleven straight weeks. I think that's pretty notable. None of her other books achieved that kind of success. -- Andrew Parodi 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion to merge this book into the author's page originally began on IRC in bootcamp where it looked to be the only way to save the author's page from being deleted. The author's page hadn't any credible secondary resources. All of the resources listed there on that page now were found on my own behalf and research. The book is prominently noted on the author's page, as well as cited resources for it. Ste4k 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep relatively notable book by a notable spiritual activist (co-founder of the United States Department of Peace). May be a bad faith nom, as evidenced by Ste4k's recent AfD's for basically any article related to A Course in Miracles --TBCTaLk?!? 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. -- Andrew Parodi 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to author. Marianne Williamson appears to be notable solely in respect of the authorship and promotion of this book. Reviewing an entire walled garden for inclusion is not evidence of bad faith; Ste4k is not alone in seeing a lack of any cited support for its significance outside the ACIM movement itself. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think it is bad faith on his/her part that he/she has continually accused me of being part of "some advocacy group" or of making money off of ACIM, claiming that these things are the only reason I have any interest in seeing to it that he/she doesn't have every ACIM-related article deleted. This person does not understand that deletion nominations are not the place for resolving disputes over article content. Read his arguments for the deletion of Big Brother. This person seems to be prudish. He/she didn't want Big Brother Season 6 to have an article because he/she didn't think it was notable, all the while ignoring the fact that just about every mainstream major show is allowed a page on Wikipedia. He/she seems to not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Andrew Parodi 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues with a user's behavior that you can't work out with them, dispute resolution is the way to approach it. Here we just consider whether articles should be deleted. William Pietri 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge agreeing with everything JzG has said. It is hard to read the article and conclude that this is bad faith. Clearly worthy of discussion at AfD. Eusebeus 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the nomination is well meant as part of a cleanup of some POV-ish material, but the book spent 39 weeks [57] on the NYT nonfiction bestseller list in 1992 and was seen a decade later as one of two books that took New Age thought mainstream [58]. It even gets a brief mention in the Skeptic's Dictionary [59]. I'd have a hard time calling it a non-notable book. --William Pietri 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per William Pietri. 39 weeks on the bestseller list is a clear sign that this book is notable. --Metropolitan90 00:10, 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. – Avi 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Monism

This article appears to be WP:NEO. In itself, the article states that the term is "is found within" the book A Course in Miracles however, it doesn't cite the book itself as reference, and being mentioned only once in one book is hardly any reason to believe it should have an article for itself. The phrase itself only shows 477 hits on Google. Ste4k 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to A Course In Miracles--TBCTaLk?!? 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to A Course In Miracles. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge to ACIM, but even a merge and redirect is likely giving undue credence to this neologism. WP:NEO says avoid them. I read that as delete. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Tevildo 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JzG. — Haeleth Talk 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. Merging would still acknowledge the neologism, which is against WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism.--Nick Y. 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable concept. SM247^{My Talk} 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Term is used by Schubert Ogden, a fairly well-known theologian, in articles Lurker 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article as currently written is about the neologism, but the term itself (with a different meaning) is used by Ogden, and is in the title of at least one book published in 1923. [60][61] The term in this other sense would not have "Monism" capitalized, however. Gimmetrow 00:33, 4 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. – Avi 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dartmouth Plan

Not notable, not verifiable, no actual content Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. The article describes a political plan that is only available by applying to receive it via a Gmail address. The article does not describe the plan in any detail. The plan has not been written about in any major media. Most of the linked sources are general and irrelevant. The only place the plan has even been discussed is astroturfing in blog comments. If it exists and is reaching opinion makers, it would have been talked about by now, but Technorati shows no current discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX; couldn't find anything relevant on Google [62] (most of the results are from Wikipedia mirrors and a New York financial company also known as Dartmouth Plan)--TBCTaLk?!? 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified & unsourced original research. 893 Ghits which are false positives when WP & mirrors are excluded.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - in addition, User:Sammy Houston has only contributed to this one article. Most probably a hoax. Em-jay-es 06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My impression is more crank than hoax, actually. The promoter seems to have exactly the wrong idea about how to disseminate ideas today (e.g. talk about the plan on Blogspot). And a meaningless Wikipedia article (suspected WP:VAIN being another reason). --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-verifiable. SM247^{My Talk} 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons above and why would it be sent to Michael Dukakis??? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's an old Hollywood joke about the starlet so dumb, she slept with the writer. Viz., the least influential person possible ... --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. Meekohi 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Discography

Article apparently created in error; duplicates information found on article on band "Rain".--Hisako 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant due to Rain's Discography article--TBCTaLk?!? 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: wait a minute, Rain's not Japanese... anyways, delete it.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 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 redirect to Business process outsourcing in India. – Avi 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsourcing to India

Page was recreated by User:Asirp on 30 June, 2006. Previous discussion. Currently a non-objective article spam-linking to outsourcing firms in India.  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; WP:OR and WP:ADS--TBCTaLk?!? 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:ADS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, note that WP:ADS and WP:SPAM are actually links to the same guideline. I use WP:ADS since some editors find it offensive when their articles are called spam, since the word "spam" has a negative connotation.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete promotional essay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no content worth merging into outsourcing - most is just an ad as noted above. Kuru ^talk 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Redirect as per Ganeshk Dlyons493 Talk 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to outsourcing. SM247^{My Talk} 01:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Business process outsourcing in India. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ganeshk -- Lost 05:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, linkfarm, promo KleenupKrew 10:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ganesh. ImpuMozhi 01:58, 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. – Avi 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Garrett

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful candidate. Also, not a lot of relevant Google results. [63]--TBCTaLk?!? 07:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful candidate.
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No brainer. David | Talk 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Copy over to by-election article any useful info and then delete - fails WP:BIO. —Whouk (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a serious candidate. I'd go keep on larger parties, or Green party candidates where it is a major party, but not here. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb _words^deeds 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Original editor also created Shasha Khan and Bernice Golberg, which should be considered too. Mtiedemann 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Abbotts

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Failed non-notable candidate. doktorb _words^deeds 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed non-notable candidate. BlueValour 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back when you win a notable office. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. non-notable unsuccessful candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Long precedent that candidates are not notable. David | Talk 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has stood in more than one election, has made a face for himself on the media, will probably be picked for a more winnable seat in future. I personally have no connections to him or the Lib Dems (I'm actually very anti-Lib-Dem), but I feel that as he has stood in more than one place, it will be useful for people investigating those election results to keep this article (something as a political anarak I seem to do very often). Sean | Talk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and as per Coredesat. Uncantabrigian 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge useful info into the by-election article and Delete - fails WP:BIO. "Will probably be picked for a more winnable seat" is crystal-balling. —Whouk (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate. He is also a sitting councillor. The inforation there now will be useful for future researchers user:nakedbatman
  • Comment Vote is from very new user with only thirteen edits on other pages, eleven of which on the page for the successful candidate and most of these edits bore a partisan POV trace. "Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate" is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a major party candidate for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed non-notable candidate.Galloglass 2.00, 1 July 2006
• Delete and do not recreate until he wins a notable political office. SM247^{My Talk} 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People might be interested of the candidate who almost won the by-elections even after the by-elections. Besides, it has been suggested, that there will be a rerun because of certain irregularities, so in that case the article would need to be re-written again.--213.243.158.41 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This vote comes from an unregistered user and is an early edit. The source for the "suggested...rerun" comes from a LibDem source, so is obviously bias. doktorb _words^deeds 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In addition the Bromley Times, the root source, has subsequently stated the following: Mr Neill failed to resign his directorship until last Friday, but threatened legal action from other parties seeking to have him disqualified now seems extremely unlikely. Keeping this page because of an extremely unlikely potential second election is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 09:24, 4 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. – Avi 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirsten Gillibrand

This is yet another candidate that Annonymous1000, Jenikap etc have tried to put on here as part of the election campaign. Fails WP:BIO - Delete. BlueValour 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, unsuccessful political candidate. Also note that there a few editors (mostly Annonymous1000 Jenikap) have recently created large amounts of democratic related articles. Could this possibly be liberal propaganda on Wikipedia? If so, then the above article also falls under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox--TBCTaLk?!? 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Also, "presumptive" candidate? Sounds like crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a candidate for cleanup and de-pov, but major party nominees to national legislatures should be kept. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Missed "presumptive." Neutral for now. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You can't take a resume and a pretty face from Albany and say to people this is a good article (per above). SM247^{My Talk} 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for now since she is a current congressional candidate in a major party primary [64]. Bring back up for AFD if she loses the primary. KleenupKrew 10:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's WP:NPOV may need some work ("energetic moderate-to-liberal Democrat with broad bi-partisan appeal," is just a start), but as a poorly qualified amateur historian, I personally think this is one of those things that should be kept. If she loses, ten years from now (Web 5.0?) somebody else will have won and the competitor would be a red article because nobody knows who she was... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:48, 4 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if a candidate may become notable upon event A (e.g. producing a hit single, winning an election), we create it when event A takes place, we don't create it based on some sort of presumption of innocence and delete them when event A doesn't occur. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phyllis Busansky

... and another. I wonder how many there are around? Delete. BlueValour 07:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, another non-notable political cadidate. Few relevant Google results [65]--TBCTaLk?!? 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this one, too, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A major party candidate nominee for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not recreate unless elected (and maybe not even then). SM247^{My Talk} 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, current major party congressional candidate [66]. Bring back up for AFD if she loses in November, but not now. KleenupKrew 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'. Significant local/regional politician in a closely watched race in a significant district. Gamaliel 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. AfD template was removed, and this deletion discussion is dormant. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Construction (RuneScape)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape)/Archive1 for other AFD nomination.

Page is a game guide, non notable. Ed^{talk c E} 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you want this page deleted or just redirected to RuneScape skills? Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if everyone wanted it deleted or redirected. See RuneScape's talk page, and go near the bottom. As you can see, there are others to be deleted.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Want to just withdraw this nomination and work with me for the next fifteen or so minutes on this article? We just have to get the useful information out of the article, put it in RuneScape skills, and make a redirect like in all the other individual skills articles. Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this nomination--Ed^{talk c E} 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Avi 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Castor

What a surprise - another election candidate. Delete. BlueValour 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not (yet) notable. DarthVader 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• What a surprise. Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal ball--TBCTaLk?!? 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a major party nominee for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, current congressional candidate in a major party primary [67]. Bring back up for AFD later if she loses the primary, but not now. KleenupKrew 10:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hmmm... She's getting some buzz, and is interesting due to her family connections as well as the circumstances of her probable nomination. Needs cleanup for POV (don't have time, gotta run), but let's keep her around. Captainktainer * Talk 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable for family connections and being a major party candidate and leading contender for a significant seat. Gamaliel 21:09, 5 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. – Avi 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everest of Apples

A very worthy cause but not yet notable. BlueValour 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable charity. Only 803 google results [68], few of which are relevant.--TBCTaLk?!? 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no discussion of notability of organisation, WP:ORG refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per all above. PJM 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 01:26, 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. – Avi 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandoo

Effectively an advert BlueValour 08:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete That's a neon advert. 377 unique google hits [69] for a product that is solely web based. Note the following from their website: "It’s still very early days" (speaking of their beta product). Note also their feedback archive which goes all the way back to May 2006. Not-notable.--Fuhghettaboutit
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; WP:ADS--TBCTaLk?!? 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant ad for a non-notable web-based product. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Egg, bacon and SPAM. SM247^{My Talk} 01:26, 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. – Avi 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Peter Beter

Self promotion for non-notable conspiracy theorist. [70]  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Only 706 Google results [71]--TBCTaLk?!? 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Also, the article is a copy-paste job from his homepage. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Non-notable. WegianWarrior 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per vain and bio as cited above. Besides, as soon as some schoolkids notice the name, this is going to be ripe for vandalism. Fan1967 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, promo or vanity article, no evidence of notability. KleenupKrew 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child Bite, Wild Feast

Notability in question, extremely few relevant ghits[72]. --NMChico24 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND, no allmusic profile and few relevant google results--TBCTaLk?!? 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC Kevin 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (since their debut album hasn't even been released yet). Also signed to a non-notable label. Their album's article may need to be nominated, too. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a non-notable band; could be tagged as {{db-band}}. Better off on Myspace rather than in an encyclopedia, until notable status is achieved. WP:BAND refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I tried the db approach, and was denied by another admin. This article seems to be reaching consensus quite quickly, though. Thank you for your input. --NMChico24 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable, and delete the album Wild Feast as well Fram 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Fails WP:BAND, WP:BIO and vanity policy. doktorb _words^deeds 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page and Wild Feast per above. Harro5 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (N.B. Including the Wild Feast page in this AfD.)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 08:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of free party sound systems

This is a fairly indiscriminate collection of info, so it fails WP:NOT. There are no citations so it also fails WP:V. None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well. Kevin 09:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a page which accompanies Sound system (DJ) and Free tekno. It has its own page because of its size. It is a list, it doesn't need citations! The sound systems are there because they fit the selection criteria. On what grounds precisely is the charge that it fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information based on? I looked through it so i could make an response, but i can't see one category which describes this list, which is after all a list of free party sound systems, exactly what it says on the tin.

Did you guys read the discussion on the talk page? I fear not. We already went through the verifiability and 'should it be a list?' issues there. For verifiability, pretty much all the sound systems have websites but they are not linked because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Many are mentioned in the following books:

• De Haro S., Estève W. 3672 La Free Story, Trouble Fête, ISBN 291425301X
• Petersen, V. No System, Steidl, ISBN 388243645X
• Van Bezouw C. Sonique Village, ISBN 9090159932

User:Kevin says "None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well" - this is not true, there is an entry for Spiral Tribe and more planned, but I dont think its worth putting up just stubs, so they come slowly. Going by WP:MUSIC I feel this list is notable because it falls under the category of others and, as I put it on the talk page ...

All the systems on the list qualify under the following spec:

For performers outside of mass media traditions:

• Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.

The tradition/school can be defined as teknival parties or underground culture, the genre as free tekno music. These sound systems participate in parties which can attract up to 100,000 people, for more info look at Czechtek or teknival. Mujinga 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While this may skirt the edge of being an indiscriminate collection the way the current policy reads, the verification policy is not negotiable. Each entry on the list is a statement of fact that XXX sound system has performed at YYY event. These facts need to be verified, per WP:V. This means a reliable source for each entry, or a blanket source if it's a book or suchlike. I don't consider each sound system's web site as a reliable source, because they are not independant. Kevin 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point Kevin, but if I may respond, I would say that I believe the entries on the list meet the selection criteria for a stand-alone list. I had a quick browse and I don't see many lists with a reliable source for each entry. eg List_of_German_language_poets, List of breakcore artists, List of mathematicians. Further, if you agree this is not an indiscriminate collection of data (and it's really not!) the doubt over verifiability is not in itself a reason to delete. The list can be edited and made better, for example i just added the three book references i quoted above. Verifiability is indeed a problem, as it always is with recent history. Perhaps the introductory paragraph describing criteria for inclusion can be improved with your help? Mujinga 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". As I said, each and every entry has to be verifiable. With most Wikipedia lists the entries have their own article, which should provide verification for inclusion on the list. Almost all of these entries have no article, so the verification must be in this article. I'm in favour of removing the redlinks from those other lists if they have been there more than a few days.

The indiscriminate argument could be gotten over with a good introductory paragraph, which I can help with if the article survives.

The bottom line though is that without verification, the article should be deleted. WP:V states that if an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --Kevin 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". My argument was actually that I don't believe every item on a list needs to be independently verifiable and I gave the other lists as examples, but strictly speaking you are correct on this point and actually for this article I can see that this criterion helps prevent vandalism.

As I hoped you noticed, I am busy adding some "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" to the article in a References section. For example, 3672 La Free Story has a list of about 100 systems on page 187. We will ignore the systems' own websites for now even though these could be argued to be official sites operating in the same way as artists' websites do and they often contain fotos, writings, music and other documentation. I could add external links which document groupings of sound systems such as Brighton Alliance of sound systems and Czech Free Tekno. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that Another good source is Discogs (http://www.discogs.com), useful here because many sound systems (eg Metek or Foxtanz)have eponymous record labels. With the addition of such verification I think that the list can stay. Mujinga 11:33, 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. Robert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sashinka Teshxiera

Hoax or utterly nn. Googling surname gives author's myspace page and little else. prod removed without comment. Delete Huon 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a {{hoax}} biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per prod tag Oldelpaso 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, blatant hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense hoax. NawlinWiki 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; WP:BIO and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 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 speedy delete as CSD A1, nonsense. Tangotango 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Bullshitery

I don't think I need to give a long explanation. Not spelling 'Bullshittery' correctly is irritating enough, but I think it's clear why this article needs to go anyway... Peeper 09:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense proto/neologism. Delete the image on the page, too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD A1 and possibly CSD G3, as evidenced by the topic and by nonsensical statements such as "Total Bullshitery is a phrase first used by one William R. Boynton in the spring of 2006"--TBCTaLk?!? 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A1 for...well, the name of the article is pretty much the same as my explanation. It's been tagged already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:17, 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. Robert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actaeon Films

Corporate spam, as per WP:CORP; has not yet produced anything other than a single short; all features are in development, and as yet unnotable. Possibly better for inclusion after they've built up a solid track record and/or reputation, but at the moment just one of thousands of production companies. Girolamo Savonarola 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 494 Google results [73]--TBCTaLk?!? 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM. SM247^{My Talk} 01:28, 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. While 4-0 (including the nominator) is smaller quorum that I would like to see, the arguments seem straightforward and convincing, and there was no refutation. I do not see a need to relist. Herostratus 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Cormack

Not notable; likely vanity/auto-biography. Wikipedia is not the London Film Production directory. See also Actaeon Films's AfD. Girolamo Savonarola 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable per search engine tests. A lot of the results are for irrelevant sites. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, few relevant google results [74]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnet 17 et.al.

I am nominating a series of new Shakespeare sonnet articles because they only contain the sonnet text and no description. Such articles run contrary to the guideline "do not write an article that consists only of lyrics" in Lyrics and poetry. Since I think that the sonnets make fair enough subjects for encyclopedia articles, I am listing up the articles which have no description and which probably should be transwikied to Wikisource unless they get some encyclopedic text on them. If anyone wants to expand any of them to make real encyclopedia articles, please do so and cross it off the list.

1. Sonnet 17
2. Sonnet 19
3. Sonnet 20
4. Sonnet 21
5. Sonnet 22
6. Sonnet 23
7. Sonnet 24
8. Sonnet 25
9. Sonnet 26
10. Sonnet 27
11. Sonnet 28
12. Sonnet 31
13. Sonnet 32
14. Sonnet 33
15. Sonnet 34
16. Sonnet 35
17. Sonnet 36
18. Sonnet 37
19. Sonnet 38
20. Sonnet 39
21. Sonnet 40
22. Sonnet 41
23. Sonnet 42
24. Sonnet 43
25. Sonnet 44
26. Sonnet 45

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki all to Wikisource. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no need to traswiki to Wikisource, since Wikisource already has all of the above sonnets [75]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all as there's an informal project going on to get these articles up to scratch see Talk:Sonnet_1 for some early discussion. Some of the sonnets have been updated within the last couple of days, and though it's a big task I think it might be able to be done for all the sonnets. MLA 10:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Give them a couple of months to get them up to scratch with some background. Viridae^Talk 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Merge any analysis into Shakespearean Sonnets. -- GWO
• As written, I understand the desire. However, Keep with massive rewrites, as Shakespearean sonnets undoubtedly have plenty to be said about them from entiely reasonable sources. Perhaps stub them by removing the actual text for now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. If nothing has been done to clean them up in a month or two, I'll vote for deletion. But I'm confident these can be improved. It shouldn't be hard finding verifiable info on Shakespeare! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no information here to delete! There is just the text of the sonnet. These are not "important articles", because they are not articles! They are just pages containing the text of the sonnet. If someone wants to write articles, that's great! But they should write the article and then create a page to contain it, not just create a page and say "please don't delete this empty page, I might get round to writing an article in it one day". (Delete, by the way. Create pages when you have text to go in them, not before.) — Haeleth Talk 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki (or delete if Tree Biting Conspiracy is right). If someone wants to write a real article about these, nothing is lost in having them start from an empty page. Also, a sonnet is only 14 lines. If you go so deep as to be able to write an extensive article about that, I think wikibooks is the place. On Wikipedia I would think two or three lines about each sonnet is enough, in which case they'd better fit in some combined form. - Andre Engels 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the massive rewrite Badlydrawnjeff refers to happens in the next 5 days. It appears these were all created by someone who was unaware of the division between Wikipedia and Wikisource. To me, it would be preferable to just have someone start from scratch if they want to write encyclopedic articles about each of these sonnets (obviously I have no predjudice against article recreation of the namespace with different content) rather than wait several months and go through an AfD again. On a side note, is it possible to create a navbar that links out to Wikisource? If so that could be done with the nav bar at Shakespeare's sonnets in addition to the already existing link to Wikisource... allowing someone to quickly access individal sonnets. Somehow though, I remember someone telling me that interwiki linking like that doesnt' work...--Isotope23 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. I wish people would stop writing stubs, and promising (or just leaving the stub) to come back and flesh it out later. Is this a race? Is someone losing because they didn't place a stub first to get editorial dibs? Why not write the full article and get it right the first time, and then post the complete article? Yes, writing articles for an encyclopedia is a lot of work - it should be. Tychocat 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dr Zak 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• No vote yet on the general series. Strong keep any that have text besides the template and source. I assume all of these are already at Wikisource. The "analysis" link contained in the stubs I visited suggests that each of these articles could be fleshed out. The noteworthiness of each separate sonnet seems beyond doubt to me. Not sure I agree with some comments that say that it would be no harder to write articles about the sonnets if the pages that now contain only a template and the source text are removed; the template and text are indeed a start. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. It's the nature of the project to be a perennial work in process, and even the barest stubs among these begin at the logical beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP This is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Over about the last month or so, 26 articles have been written on different sonnets, as well as significant changes being made to other Shakespeare related pages and a template being created to unify the discussion of these. It is much easier to work collaboratively on these if the shells are set up and then additional work done. There are 154 to do, and it is much easier to keep the format consistent if they are done in batches like this. And, yes, I expect you will see many of the existing articles grow as the project continues to broaden and deepen. I myself have not been writing original articles, but have worked on improving the ones that are put up. Sam 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All - pending further improvements. Let's give these folks a chance to do some more work :) --Doc Tropics 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I also note that much of the specific work being done here was done by one of several newcomers who have been attracted to recent WikiProject Poetry projects, and that a notice of this process was not put on their page (just a note that the creation of the articles was inappropriate). A gentle reminder to everyone: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers -- Sam 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Call me biased, but keep all - I added these sonnet texts myself, and, not unexpectedly, I think they ought to stay. Having the sonnet's text online is better than having nothing, especially considering their significance to classical English literature. It would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to post links to all 154 sonnets, only to have 90% of them completely missing. Some of you may disagree, but my personal opinion of "getting it right," as Tychocat called for, is getting it done right, not getting it done fast. Of course it's not going to be done in a day. No one is suggesting that and I think the very fact that Wikipedia has stub templates implies that some articles are going to start out wanting. I understand that Wikisource already has the same content, but the fact remains that Wikipedia gets boatloads more traffic than Wikisource, and if I were to search Wikipedia for an article on a certain Shakespearean sonnet, I'd rather find the sonnet's bare text than nothing at all. The whole point of Wikipedia is for different people to add, little by little, and slowly expand and improve content. If all I have time to do right now is post the sonnet texts, that's certainly better than waiting for 154 individual people to write 154 individual articles, one at a time. So what if the synopses, analyses, and other encyclopedic content isn't all going to be written en masse, straight away? --Sean Parmelee 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for now, good faith stubs. Sean Parmelee, I would suggest focusing on actually turning your stubs into real stubs. I.e. having at least one or two sentences in the body of the article and having some context such as "Sonnet 17 is the 17th sonnet of 154 known shakespeare's sonnets."--Nick Y. 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the deal. Eventually I am going to create articles for all of the sonnets. I usually get about 1 or 2 a day. So, there's really no point in deleting them, folks. Keep them. In a month or two each page will be back anyway. So, if you want to delete them, fine. But I'd rather you didn't because it makes it alot easier for me not having to re-write all of the skeleton. AdamBiswanger1 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you move the unfinished ones into your userspace and move them back once you are down writing the article? Dr Zak 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So far, Adam's been in the lead on this, the project was his brainchild, but he's had a bunch of collaborators in the project - Sean is helping, I've futzed around with a couple, Stumps and others have added bits and pieces. It is easier to collaborate with the template set up so we can look at the active editing and all kibbitz. Some of these are pretty raw stubs, some are starting to really develop, most are still empty. But a ton has been done in the last month, and I think the activity is attracting a number of new people to WikiProject Poetry. If this sits in Adam's userpages, we lose many of these benefits, and we'd have to completely redo the template to fit the userspace instead of the article placement. So, sticking it in one user's space would be, in my mind, very un-wiki. Sam 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Putting up raw, uncommented text is very un-wikipedia; people will complain that Wikipedia isn't Wikisource, and they are right! Hey, how about putting those articles without any commentary under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry/To_do? This would make them easy to find and would stop the "not-even-a-stub" complaints. Dr Zak 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, there's reference to it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#To Do and Portal:Poetry/Things you can do. I think I will, though, improve the descriptions and make clearer where the work needs to be done. Thanks. Sam 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Patience. --Alex S 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - If we can agree to keep the sonnets up, I think a standardized template needs to be established first, and all existing sonnet pages (stub or otherwise) need to be edited to conform to that standard before I or anyone else creates any text-only articles or any full articles. I noticed that the WikiProject Poetry page suggests using Sonnet 1 as just such a template, but I just wanted to make sure, if indeed Adam is going to contribute quite a great deal of time and effort, that he doesn't waste his time using a template that will only be modified later. As a side note, I personally would be willing (and planned from the start) to contribute some quantity of articles detailing the individual Shakespearean sonnets. Hopefully there is some way to coordinate contributors' efforts before there is any unneeded overlap. --00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Assuming good faith and have some patience, my love, patience..., appears to be work in progress SM247^{My Talk} 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weakest Keep. I'll be interested in what can be done that makes each article worthwhile in itself while also not being OR. I'll watchlist some of these. (An idea for other people who voted keep?) Shenme 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Nick Y. Penelope D 04:26, 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. Robert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Brother's Keeper

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; non-notable film--TBCTaLk?!? 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 19:06, 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. Robert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dead Letters

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; non-notable film--TBCTaLk?!? 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zos 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per related AfD's (inchoate product of non-notable co is unlikely to be notable). SM247^{My Talk} 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Apples

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These three movies may well be speedy material. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable film. Only 48 relevant Google results [76]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nom, and mother goose. Zos 19:08, 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. Robert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L2M Game Zone

Doesn't say why they're notable. —Lamentation :( 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. L2M Game Zone doesn't assert any notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 1 Google result [77]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. WegianWarrior 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NN gummy bears. Zos 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, advert. SM247^{My Talk} 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorin Taus

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 5 ghits. —Lamentation :( 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to be the article creator's first article, so it may be a test page. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC--TBCTaLk?!? 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. PJM 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in addition to above, orphant article and rambling prose. WegianWarrior 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 19:25, 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. Robert 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver de paolis

non notable-person, no mention of this guy elsehwhere, possibly a hoax Travelbird 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:HOAX. Only 1 Google result [78]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC --Pak21 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Oldelpaso 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Alan Davidson 12:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, silly. SM247^{My Talk} 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Didn't have to be a hoax, as too many people are getting the ADH tag. But... then I thought about the accent ... "Hertford Harmonica Hearts Hassociation (HHHH)" --> "Hertford 'armonica 'arts Association (HAAA)" Shenme 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• I know this boy as I have heard of him on the blues harmonica circuit. He did win that contest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.103.52 (talk • contribs) .

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Robert 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex strom

hoax, no mention of any of the people on Google, article contradicts itself Travelbird 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:HOAX. Few, if any, relevant Google results [79]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense bio. NawlinWiki 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete orphant per above. WegianWarrior 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, even if a real person. SM247^{My Talk} 01:34, 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. DS 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-fo

non notable neologism Travelbird 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO; a very nonsensical term as evidenced by statements such as the K-fo is "a slang name in Ireland for a breed of mammal that drinks too much". Also, very few relevant Google results [80]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• K-fo is a commonly used term in the south of Ireland localised to the areas of cork city and Dungarvan, county waterford and hence is a valid entry in wikipedia's library. Few relevant google pages are too be expected as Dungarvan is only a small town in a small county and the term "K-fo", although well known in this region, is still reletavely new so shouldn't be diregarded so easily. (added by K-fo)
• Delete. If it really were commonly used, there would be references. JPD (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even if it is widely used in a small area, it isn't important enough for Wikipedia until it is verifiable. JPD (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Likely hoax. Tevildo 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment AfD discussion vandalised by K-fo to change "Delete" opinions to "Keep". Tevildo 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Looks like a hoax, and WP is not a place for things made up in school one day. Tychocat 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

School?? haha right...anyway, just trying to have some fun, but you guys seem to be stuck so far up your own arses that you've forgotten what that is...oh well, "K-fo" may be deleted from here but that doesn't make a difference at all.....so you can all fuck yourselves especially you london sydney fuck.....mathematics is your hobby...get a life....oh yeah...WHO THE FUCK ASKED YOU?!?!?!? cheerfully yours....K-fo

• Delete And thank you OH so much for your thoughtful, objectionable and worthwhile comments. To summarize: Mr. K-fo, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul! Wildthing61476 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and maybe a dab of Speedy for the author's behavior. --DarkAudit 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. Block or otherwise punish the creator of the article for his behavior. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Burninate due to verifiability problems and in response to unprovoked idiocy from User:K-fo, the eponym of this absurd article. SM247^{My Talk} 01:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V & WP:NEO. --blue520 07:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIÑAN, LAGUNA, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWOODS INTERCHANGE, SOUTH SUPER HI-WAY, Bgy. San Francisco, 4024

article about a non-notable highway exit, utterly superflous as an article on the town already exists Travelbird 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• What next, Third paving stone from the left, corner of Rochester Row and Vincent Street, just in front of the hairdressers, London SW1? Oh, delete. David | Talk 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; highway exits are by all means non-notable. Not even bothering to check Google for this one. On second thought, speedy delete per CSD A1.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD A1. I feel like I am being screamed at. Viridae^Talk 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I now await the above article and That side street just off the A258 with the farm on the corner doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 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, deleted by User:RHaworth. --JPD (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Udders of justice

non-notable band Travelbird 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• ""delete** --Charlesknight 10:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. No allmusic profile and no Google results [81]--TBCTaLk?!? 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7, tagged. This farcical article dosen't assert notability. PJM 11:15, 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. – Avi 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nzboards

Boardvertisement. Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:NOR. 135 active members. Alexa rank 476,313. Need I go on? (And don't forget to zorch the image, too.) —Lamentation :( 10:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; non-notable webpage--TBCTaLk?!? 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nominator says it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, the prose is bad. WegianWarrior 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, has a list of active usernames for grod's sake. SM247^{My Talk} 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Further, that list doesn't appear to be terribly long. A search of an Australia New Zealand media database came up with no stories on this at all and it doesn't seem to meet any other criteria of WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Avenue 03:22, 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. Robert 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)