Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was speedy delete per G12; copyvio of http://www.iskenderiye.com/wp_encyclopedia/?s=The+book+chronicles+the+history. _JD^talk 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "rulers of evil"

Original essay, book promotion, whatever the hell it is, it's NOT an encyclopedia article. Was prod'ed, but tag removed without comment by creator. Calton | Talk 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not an article. --File Éireann 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete textdump. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Braindump, non sources. scope_creep 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete (edit conflict) crapflood of textdump. I can see why Calton is confused, I'm not sure what to call this, except soon to be gone, I hope. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the only way to make this into an encyclopedia article would be to restart from scratch. Besides, there's already an article on Tupper Saussy that mentions this book, thus it's pretty much redundant, anyway. Tubezone 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Copyvio Delete direct paste from [1] with no assertion of right --Steve 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I invoked copyvio procedure --Steve 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, copyright violation. Jcam 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grouse Lodge

This is an advert for a recording studio. No real evidence of notability is given and the article is not in encyclopaedic form, it should go File Éireann 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Its a badly written article and its probably an advert. scope_creep 01:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed the advertisement and added a reference. It's always a good idea to try a Google news search, just in case something is both advertisement and notable. - 152.91.9.144 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"Keep" I'm willing to work on this one. I was just reading about this place the other day in a newspaper article. I have no connection to the subject of this article whatsoever and I can be helpful in overcoming the conflict of interest/ advertising/ POV problems. I'm in Alabama and it's in Ireland, so it's safe to say I'm far removed from the subject matter. OfficeGirl 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now per OfficeGirl. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep If nothing happens to it and it is nominated again, I will probably vote otherwise. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems notable enough. Atlantis Hawk 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, article establishes notability, and Google confirms it (at least for Snow Patrol and Muse (band), which is good enough for me). Fram 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Just because a band recorded somewhere does not make that location notable: it's just a fact. Had one of the band members died there, or had there been a pitched battle with the police, or were the studio the only one in the world built from solid gold it would be notable. This isn't notable. Bad enough that we have pubs and schools in Wikipedia, but please let's stop the rot now. WMMartin 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll give you some more WP:CORP meeting facts. The second Google hit looking for "Grouse lodge" recording studio gives me this[2]: "Grouse Lodge Recording Studios located in Rosemount, Co Westmeath owned by Paddy and Claire Dunning were awarded joint first place in the World Young Business Achievers Awards in Sofia, Bulgaria, on November 23rd last. In addition, they received the Award for Excellence in Entrepreneurial Management." If this award (and the persons presenting it and commenting on it) isn't enough, then what about this FoxNews article which does clearly more than a passing mention[3] (accidentally, result 3 on Google). I think I'll have to change my opinion to a strong keep after this... Fram 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now -- We'll see what OfficeGirl does. We can always kill it later. Deletionists FTW. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above, it's possible to source and maintain this -- so why not? Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, bad layout and such but the article is notable enough (slightly for me to keep).--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CORP as there are no sources used that are primarily about the studio. The one source used is clearly about Jackson. GRBerry 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Don't mix the article as it is with what is possible, and presented in this AfD. This is a discussion, so it is best if you first look at the comments of other people before making yp your mind. Please check the link I gave for the World Young Business Achievers Awards in Sofia, Bulgaria. This passes WP:CORP. Fram 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know why I missed those. The award is one good coverage. The Fox News thing is again, primarily about Jackson. We need multiple coverage primarily about the studio to meet [[[WP:CORP]], so my opinion isn't changing.

Keep. Current revision of the article appears to satisfy WP:CORP guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was Delete Redirect optional. ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperfur

Of the 80-odd unique Google hits off Wikipedia, none appear to eb reliable sources and many are unrelated. This seems to be a neologism with strictly limited currency. Guy 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to macrophilia, if anywhere. The definition is accurate enough, but it's not a particularly significant term even within the furry fandom, and I don't believe there is a good source for it. GreenReaper 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No sources, if sources are presented, should be Merged into main article.scope_creep 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Doug Winger. I don't know if he technically started it or not, but it's certainly most commonly associated with him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to macrophilia. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to macrophilia Robovski 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Frivolous. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Dicdef neologism. I don't even see the term relevant to the furry fandom. Wikifur doesn't even use that term, but calls it "Hypertrophilia" or "Hyper-endowed". Anomo 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, furrycruft AND a neologism! Lankiveil 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 de-fucking-lete. DS 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of allusions to the word "fuck"

First of all, this list is extremely uncyclopedic, and I can't ever see it being useful. Secondly, it is also highly subjective, as what one person considers an allusion, someone else could be completely oblivious to. Basically, this "article" is a glaring WP:NOT violation, and fuckcruft. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The list could never be complete. The entries are not sourced. They're not even allusions! Fuckcruft indeed. --Charlene 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if this didn't violate WP:NOT,it'd violate WP:V, as no sources for "fuck allusions" probably exist". Mitaphane _talk 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete lol @ fuckcruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, salt to taste - only on Wikipedia could you have a list like this. Now, let's wait for the inevitable Inclusionist to suggest this is a valuable learning resource. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep It could be a good article if sources could be added, which would be easy to do. A bit of tidying would make it right. scope_creep 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... Sources? Since when do people come out and say "WE'RE DISGUISING THE WORD FUCK SUCKAS!!!"? -Amarkov ^babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Amarkov, I got a laugh out of that comment. Authors and writers have been disguising sex words in literature for centuries. This list is has merit and has genuine knowledge contained in it. It would need to be expanded with historical references and sources. scope_creep 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter that they're doing it. What matters is that you can VERIFY that they are doing it. And you can not verify that the author is alluding to something without having them say so. -Amarkov ^babble 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Christ, Scope, I wasn't serious with my comment about Inclusionists you know. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean, you didn't honestly think that would happen? Odd. -Amarkov ^babble 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. <sarcasm>What a wonderful idea, a list of everything which might possibly be close to a certain swear word! We need the letter F there, too.</sarcasm> -Amarkov ^babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
delete (BTW, DYK this word is also an allusion to the word "fuck it!", so this list must be very incomplete :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic, somewhat subjective. It's mildly amusing, but that's not a good enough reason to have a list. See: Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Think of the reader. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31#Category:Fuck. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete would like to keep but have to agree with nominator †he Bread 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ideally, this could have promise, but in reality this can become too fraking uncontrolled and unwieldy to be worthwhile.-- danntm ^T _C 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete List cruft, collection of anything and everything are not encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As HighInBC said, list cruft. -newkai t-c 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, and "fsck" stands for "filesystem check", thank you very much. JIP | Talk 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
D***** per above. MER-C 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete canonical listcruft. Guy 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible to get a difinitive list. Impossible to find references. Moderatelly obscene. Spinach Dip 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per [[WP:NOT] an indiscriminate collction of information, as incompleteable, and POV. This so WP:NOT that it ought to be on a WP:NOT at all, not ever, not under any circumstances. Pity it can't be speedied :(--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Why are people so obsessed with the word "fuck"? Why not "shit" or "damn" or "pumpernickel"?--TBCΦtalk? 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe you just said pumpernickel! Oh no I said it too! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's how my grandmother died, you insensitive clod! Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Hut 8.5 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- this kind of thing is incredibly common (they missed "F-bomb", too...), to the point where it's simply unmaintainable. If this were ever actually complete, it'd be freakin' huge. It might even develop its own gravitational field, then implode and kill us all. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Imploding gravitational field?? That is how my grandmothers uncles father died! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete While it really is unneccesary for me to add my vote here, given there is already wide consensus, it's not every day that you get to say that something should get deleted because it constitutes 'fuckcruft' --The Way 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete, this article is unneccessary and will never be complete. It comes across as someone wanting to show how much allusions they can list to the word ****.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, slightly amusing, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete Not just because it violates notability policy, I just really want to use the word "fuckcruft" doktorb _words^deeds 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wholly unencyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and scatter the ashes. Smacks of an article written entirely because someone wanted to type the word "fuck" on the Wikipedia as badly as Doktorb wanted to type "fuckcruft".Vafthrudnir 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 we're done here. Rather, delete. I am aware the deletion debate only opened several hours ago, but this many delete arguments in such a short span of time leads me to believe that there is no point in letting this go any longer. --Coredesat 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Happy Tree Friends Deaths

Ludicrously detailed (45K!) and unsourced list regarding a very minor cartoon series. Fancruft, essentially, comparable to List of jokes in According to Jim. Was prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not quite a very minor cartoon series - a possibly notable minor cartoon series, to be fair. But this is just listcruft/fancruft. Bwithh 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Kill it dead per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. Basically, this article is created by tallying up all the deaths and listing how they died. I doubt some reliable secondary source has done this. The deaths in Happy Tree Friends should go to. Mitaphane _talk 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut the tree down per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete This is the worst article i've seen.scope_creep 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OPEN FIRE! Who cares enough to read this anyway? Shadow1 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with salt for taste - It needs to die and stay dead. This is embarassing. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Impale, vaporize, mutilate, DELETE FROM EXISTANCE - Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete cruft. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Who knew Happy Trees could spawn list kudzu? Belongs on a fan site. Time to do some Wikipruning. Compost Tubezone 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Let other people's comments speak for themselves. But if you need my opinion, this is just utter cruft. WikiBot 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I admit, I actually found this useful coz I keep forgetting on which episode did X die in Y way. But cruft must go. --Hús ö nd 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and burn the remains. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Honestly, I was surprised someone even created an article like this. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact)
Delete. This would be like a list of how Kenny dies in every episode of South Park... Uh... Please don't tell me we have that. -newkai t-c 05:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we do, List of Kenny's deaths... But I suppose South Park is more notable. -newkai t-c 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tapestries MUCK

148 unique Googles outside Wikipedia and forums, not that many inside the forums either. No evidence of significance, pretty close to an A7 speedy. Advertorial in tone, no reliable sources, apparent original research, and appears to be of no significance outside the furry community (which is pretty small). Guy 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. "Tapestries MUCK" Mitaphane _talk 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The results come out a little differently when a slightly differently-phrased search is employed. Tapestries +muck Shimeru 08:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - True, but a lot of those aren't it. On the other hand, like Albedo, it's often referred to just as "Tapestries" (or Tapes, or Taps). Probably a better search is Google Groups, where it garners a fair few more. GreenReaper 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Yeah, noticed that afterwards. Excluding Wikipedia and copied sites still gets 25,000, though, and even given the spurious ones, it's a better indication than the search for "Tapestries MUCK" is. Shimeru 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete fails to assert notability again on the furry fandom sites. scope_creep 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can't A7. It's not a website. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not really significant. Not a big deal at all. Only like the second-largest furry MU* in existence, that's all. =) Raises an extremely tricky question though: It's a MUD. We don't exactly have solid notability criteria for MUDs. And the problem is, only the biggest of the biggest of the MUDs ever get big mainstream recognition. I can personally remember one. BatMUD. MUDs are, and stay, as esoteric topic, where they are rarely mentioned anywhere by name, and even if they are, they're mentioned trivially. We have precious few sites that rank MUDs according to activity and popularity - and even they can't really be trusted, because the MUD users themselves may not vote for them. The MUD Connector claims the game has been in operation since 1991 and has 100+ players online at any given time. MUD Magic claims 200. Telnet to tapestries.fur.com 2069 and type "WHO" - I get 650 players are connected. (Max was 847). Cool, huh? Wired mention, though it's pretty much trivial. I have no vote one way or another - this MUCK may not be a significant topic in the grander scheme of things. But heck, it's a big MUCK among the (significantly large) group of people who are its main target group. I'm just lamenting the fact that this is a good example of a case that's been around forever, has had its impact, is important within the community... yet within Wikipedia, this is probably merge / external link worthy material at best. I hate it. It makes Wikipedia feel like an ordinary encyclopaedia that only covers the richness of the culture with boring scholarly let's-look-at-the-big-picture-from-the-orbit-and-ignore-details way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- *squint* these folks have been in a real print magazine, they have been around forever, no might in world could delete their article, I suppose, and their weekly user peak is around 300 users. And here we're condemning a MUD that has peaks of 500-800 to hell just because there's been precious few print mentions or other mentions outside of the furry community. We have a little bit funny policies, no? Okay, don't listen to me, I'm just a random idiot... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- And lastly, apologies to everyone for going off like this. I'm sorry if someone finds this sort of outbursts disruptive. (I'm sometimes stupid this way. Now kick me. I've earned it.) For whatever it's worth, yes, I'm an user of the MUCK, yet when I pull on my Wikipedia Admin hat, I have no problem if the article is deleted if that's what the community thinks; it's just that there's definitely something funny in Wikipedia's policies what comes to situations like this. And to make things worse, it's hard to pin down exactly what is so funny in this. The world, it seems, is a complex and frequently illogical place. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently it's actually the largest, bigger even than FurryMUCK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I sympathise. Really. The fact is, we have to have good sources, and there are none for this, as far as I can tell. WikiFur can cover it in all its glory because they don't have verifiability and neutrality policies to worry about, but we do - the largest furry MU* is also not that much of a claim; the furry community is not that big to start with and the subset that plays MU* games is (as noted above) in the hundreds or low thousands at most. Every day we delete web forums and online games with mroe users than this, for the very same reason: no substantive coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Directory listings, fan forums and nothing else. Guy 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I agree on principle; I just disagree slightly with your assessment of the numbers.
One thing to consider: Above, I'm speaking of concurrent users at a specific time, not total number of user accounts, so these numbers are not exactly comparable. Gaia Online's front page they have 13,541 users online. Suddenly looks pretty small. Also says there's 5,026,922 users total. Not so small any more. There's no numbers on the total user count in Tapestries, which is pretty nasty.
Secondly, as I tried to hint above, Tapestries is a very large MU* compared to all other MU*s, not just compared to other furry MU*s.
Basically, we're sitting on top of the exact thought experiments that the policies use (or used, last I checked): Sure, we have a big MU* here, everyone knows it's a big and important MU* that has had tons of impact, but we can't prove it's big and important through sources, so apparently it's not fit to be included in Wikipedia. (And bees can't fly, either, if you believe the sources.) Using thought experiments is kind of flimsy, so I propose we change these policies to use this as a living example of what we can't do. We need a good example of "criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". We need an example of truth that we can't include, enshrined forever in our policies. If we're to delete this, let's make an example out if it. It's entirely reasonable in my opinion.
And again, sorry for going off like this. Yours truly, probably the single most troublesome editor in the past weeks, --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete very frivolous. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Oh, man, I dunno about this one. Part of me wants to just say "Strong Keep, Duh, of course it's notable!" and leave it at that. If only things were that simple. On one hand, this is extremely notable within the online furry community, both widely-known and widely-played. On the other hand we have the fundamental problem of reliable sources: even with the many gaming magazines out there, few of them ever bother to cover the comings-and-goings of the MUCK world, and if they did they'd still probably stay away from the adult-oriented Tapestries. Finally, there's the issue of precedent-setting: articles about MU*s tend to attract more articles about MU*s, which the creators then vigorously defend because if there's even one MU* article on all of Wikipedia then they have a constitutional right to theirs too. To sum it all up, I'm torn. I'd love it if somebody showed up with some realiable sources os we could keep this, but if not, well, there's always WikiFur. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant delete-it is significant within the MUD community, but the lack of reliable sources would really prevent anything much being written, and information about it is certainly not widespread enough to fall under the "common knowledge" exemption of WP:V. Change to keep as sources have been found. Seraphimblade 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep The largest, and among the oldest, mucks dedicated to its particular fandom. It's also one of the oldest and most populous adult-oriented mucks. It's apparently been featured in a Wired News article, a 1999 public radio international feature called Beyond Computers, a San Francisco Bay Guardian article from 1998. It was a link of the day at Sex & Games, published by the International Game Developers' Association -- and that's just from five minutes of searching. Its existence is quite verifiable, and the wealth of weblinks to it (about 25,000 Google hits for Tapestries +muck -wikipedia) should speak to its noteworthiness as an internet phenomenon. Shimeru 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case it will be trivially easy to remedy the sourcing problems, and you should do so please. Guy 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- - Haven't got time to rewrite the article right now, but I've added those four potential sources to the page. Shimeru 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I've done a little rewrite, added some material, and found a few more sources. Turns out it features prominently in The Original TinySex FAQ. Could doubtless use more work by someone more familiar with it, but that should address sources, even if some of them are somewhat trivial. Shimeru 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, reluctantly - I'm a deletionist, and I hate this kind of article...but Starblind has a point. We need to look, policy-wise, at WP:V and the idea of notability in cases like this. I don't like it, and I'm not 100% sure it's right, but keep for now. Maybe talk about it on the village pump?--Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing up Furcadia as well in that. Another long-running world with a dedicated following (heck, I remember when Second Life wasn't as busy as it), but which grew slowly, is deliberately specific to a certain genre and which has never gained significant news coverage. GreenReaper 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia L. Michelle

del nonnotable psychic. `'mikkanarxi 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also only 4 ghits. [4] (not counting the wiki entry). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete She breaks the WP:BIO guidelines in the first sentance of the article. scope_creep 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO.--Hús ö nd 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Since the article says minor renown can't this be speedied for not asserting importance? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, however appearing on a TV show restricts it from speedy. MER-C 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Folantin 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable, but article does assert notability, so you can't speedy. Moreschi 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I have to agree that minor renown denotes WP:BIO failure Computerjoe 's talk 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Hut 8.5 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn psychic, with some POV thrown in for good measure. Using my powers of psychic prescience, I predict this article will never develop into anything worth keeping. Lankiveil 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. DS 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albedo Anthropomorphics

Around 80 unique Googles, of which none seem to be reliable sources. Claims to have been nomimated for an award, but not avery big one and it didn't win. Almost every site that Google links for this is a catalogue listing or some other trivial directory-style mention. Article is uncited. The subsidiary article on the main character is even more invisible. Also rolling in the creator, known "mainly" (for values of mainly which appear in this case to be only) for this. We appear to have a walled garden here, I wonder how many others there are? Guy 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete All articles fail simple notability assertions and little sources to boot. scope_creep 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep extremely notable comic from a notable publisher (several of them, actually) and a 20+ year publishing history, which is an eternity by the standards of non-superhero comics. Albedo is also where Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo got started. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep this comic and its creator, were largely responsible for starting a new subgenre of comics, the furry comic, which took the ostensibily children's and light entertainment form of the funny animal and turned it into something that could tell stories with an adult's sophistication. That in turn helped create furry fandom. Case in point, the major newsgroup alt.fan.furry was originally alt.fan.albedo. That alone should be enough to justify this series.--kchishol1970 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though I'm sure they could be improved. I bought the first issues of Albedo at Anthrocon purely on its notability as a significant comic in the history of the furry fandom. The only other one I bought on that basis was Omaha the Cat Dancer. It is regarded as a significant comic for the reasons mentioned above. Also noted several times in the YARF! Chronology (penned by Fred Pattern (info), the compiler of Best in Show, and a leading authority on the fandom). GreenReaper 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note The name of the comic is very frequently shortened to "Albedo", which is likely to be why you're not finding much in google. Here are some more details - I'm not sure they'd count as reliable sources, but they give an idea of the scope of the comic and RPG: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] GreenReaper 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Absolutely no discussion of removing these. Nomination entirely without merit. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep is not a valid !vote when delete !votes have been registered. Guy 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Didn't notice Scope creeps vote up there. Thought that was the nominators vote continued, and scope creep some policy or guideline reference. So a simple but strong keep then. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Relatively famous comic book series that has spawned a licensed role-playing game. When doing searches be aware that it's rarely called Albedo Anthropomorphics, but usually just referred to as Albedo. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Albedo has other meanings too :-) Guy 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Try +Albedo +comic. Ben W Bell talk 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per all above. Shimeru 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Albedo was one of the first anthropomorphic comics to get a lot of play, through established publishers like Antarctic Press, and were (still are) key to the fandom. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Albedo and its creator did a lot to establish seriously-themed furry comics in the eighties.--BlueSquadronRaven 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep extremely notable comic from a notable publisher. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Major significant absolute keep! I see no reason for this particular article to be marked for deletion. Albedo is listed here as a “Furry comic book.” However, it is also a science fiction comic. There are many entries in Wikipedia for similar titles in these categories, Albedo is a significant work in the area of Comics – it was groundbreaking in opening the door to a whole new subgenre. Before Albedo was published, “Furry comic books” were only of funny animal variety. I see no one putting Superman, Akira (manga), Critters, Bucky O'Hare, The DNAgents, and the like up for deletion. There are often many times a search on the internet can come up with little or even no hits – that is no reason for an article to be dropped from this site. There are many articles here that cover minor or even insignificant items of note – but the articles are still valid and legitimate. -- Jason Palpatine 14:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Starblind. - Lex 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brickey Elementary

To explain this context/confusion black hole...An elementary school. In Tennessee. With about 1000 students. With the wrong name. Notable? Not so per WP:SCHOOLS, which is a proposed guideline though. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Also fails WP:HASRIGHTNAME. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability is presented in the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails to assert notability.--Hús ö nd 04:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just a building, nothing more. Resolute 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It has a two year history of... Absolutely nothing. -newkai t-c 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SCHOOL, the most widely-accepted standard for evaluating such articles. Seems to have little prospect that this article will ever advance beyond this point. Alansohn 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, even if you discount WP:SCHOOL as just a proposed policy, there is nothing here that shows that this school is notable. It has only existed for two years, and being built to solve an overcrowding problem does not make something notable. In the event it is kept, it needs to be moved to a different title. --Coredesat 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I haven't finished researching this school yet (getting close to bedtime) but one student did place first in a low level state gymnastic competition- I have added a note about that to the article. The only other mentions of the school that aren't directory entries or something similar seem to be [10] which might have some relevant data, it notes a "military theme" for last graduation and has a few other minor details which might be able to be incorporated into the article. This [11] discusses their accelerated reading program and may also have a few details if anyone really wants to sort it out. The only other interesting one is [12] where the mention is incidental (and unreliable in any event- they can't even spell - "Bible studies") but sounds like it might be a first amendment case waiting to happen (except given the location this sort of thing might be taken for granted and without more details it is hard to see precisely what they are doing. The description is consistent with completely legal behavior- I may just be a cynical evil liberal). Presumably if they get an interesting case about that then the school would become notable but that obviously hasn't happened yet. JoshuaZ 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
~~*Weak but almost normal delete~~ Ok, mainly per some of the above comments and my own comments earlier. Despite researching I could find nothing notable about the school. The only reason why this is weak delete is that I don't know enough about gymnastics to tell whether the mentioned gymnastic result could be arguably notable or not. From my limited knowledge my impression is no, but I'm not completely sure- the most reasonable test for that - presence of non-trivial coverage, indicates a lack of notability in the gymnastic success. JoshuaZ 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to full delete per evidence/comments from Fram below. JoshuaZ 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the student who earned the gymnastic result is not notable enough to have their own article, which they are not, then what they did is not notable enough to earn the school an article either. --The Way 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Oh, and just for completeness, the school is also mentioned in participating in some minor program here [13]. This does not alter notability. JoshuaZ 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep/merge. The entire school was demolished and rebuilt, and but wikipedia readers in the area aren't supposed to be able to find this out? If merged, might want to omit some of the details, as well as JoshuaZ' signature. Kappa 07:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- ooh, Don;t know how that fell in there. took it out. Thanks. Will respond to the other comments tommorow probably. Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Expanding on my earlier comment, could you explain how being demolished and rebuilt is an indication of notability? One of the local drug stores he got demolished and rebuilt too. JoshuaZ 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Repeating my question, can you tell me why wikipedia readers shouldn't be able to find out that an entire school in their area was demolished, rebuilt and renamed? Kappa 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Sure, as The Way observed below, having schools demolished and rebuilt is common and not at all a notable event. If they want to find out about it they can find from local resources. Wikipedia is not the history of every little thing that random city government decided to do. JoshuaZ 04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      - So much for putting the sum total of human knowledge in my hand. Parasites. Kappa 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Sum total of human knowledge? WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Shimeru 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Likely an add. No notability whatsoever. Spinach Dip 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The gymnast mentioned was competing at a really low (well, the lowest) level, as evidenced by e.g. this[14] article about Level 4 gymnastics. Thta also explains why it only gets one local passing mention in an article and no more coverage. No other discerning qualities, so no reason to keep this one. Fram 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Notability must be established and this is well short. Montco 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep 1000 pupils is a lot for an elementary school, isn't it? Computerjoe 's talk 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, should be reasonably easy to find sources and rename the article. JYolkowski // talk 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's bad enough that we tend to keep every single high school, please don't make a precedent of keeping every single elementary school as well. This is non-notable and so what if it was demolished and rebuilt? Two different elementary schools in my hometown, both of which are just as non-notable, have had the same thing happen to them and I'd assume it's not very uncommon across the US, let alone across the world (especially in developing countries). I must point out, as I have a tendency to do, what kind of precedent keeping this would set. First of all we'd have to take every elementary school, not only in the US but worldwide, that fits is as notable as this school, meaning most elementary schools would be able to get articles. This is not something Wikipedia needs, it amounts (as does keeping high schools, but that's an entirely different topic of discussion) essentially to a detailed directory and Wikipedia is NOT supposed to function as a directory. Elementary Schoolcruft. --The Way 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if there's anything here worth noting, it can be noted in the appropriate Knoxville article. Lankiveil 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete Utterly non-notewrothy and unlikely to expand. Can be re-added in the future if it should happen to become noteworthy. Shimeru 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delere per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please this should be notable to the community and surrounding areas Yuckfoo 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment First of all, many things are notable to a community, that doesn't make them notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. Second of all, do you have any evidence that this is at all notable to the community and surrounding areas? JoshuaZ 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and then place a redirect to Knoxville, Tennessee as a possible search term. Yamaguchi先生 22:26, 14 November 2006
Keep. With so many children in attendance at a K-5 school, notability is debatable. Silensor 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted and made into a shrubbery. Er, a redirect. DS 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film

I think it's debatable that we need an article for every character that is in Holy Grail, but this is even worse—an article for a character that isn't in Holy Grail. It's an article devoted to a five-second joke. Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a listing of every joke character in comedic movies Mitaphane _talk 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge This should be merged as trivia in linking article. Does not deserve a single page. scope_creep 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think it works... its funny, and relivant to the movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.44.164 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 November 2006.
Delete, merge unnecessary, the content is duplicated in the main article and in Spamalot. hateless 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete As great as Monty Python is, this is very obviously cruft. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sir not appearing in this encyclopedia, for not being a character in a movie, and having no other claim to fame. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A funny part of one of my favourite films of all time, but the very definition of a character who doesn't need his own article for (among other things) not being a character. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. SWAdair 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Deserves a mention but not his own article. JIP | Talk 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. MER-C 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - why merge trivia? -- Whpq 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - per above --Dangherous 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, no need to merge: already mentioned at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Plot, and that's all he needs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
Redirect to the movie article, where he's mentioned and the picture is there also. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. As a stand-alone article...sir, this article not pinin'! It's passed on! This article is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace, if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! It is an ex-article! (In other words, I think it should be deleted.)--TheOtherBob 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The Sensible Party !votes Weak Keep with second choice Merge and Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Silly Party suggests Redirect to Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Show, the Broadway version. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge, would have said delete, but I've a soft spot for Python. Lankiveil 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Redirect then use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch upon the offender... Sorry... Redirect to Very silly people, not silly walks SkierRMH 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (who also did not appear in the film) (retired)
Redirect to film. -- nae'blis 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, good start, and in both movie and play. Dark j e di requiem 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to movie. - Lex 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There is an entire Category:Monty Python and the Holy Grail which current has 20 articles. I think we should respect that body of work and not go cherry-picking individual articles to delete. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is probably responsible for more people not getting laid than any other movie in history, so it's pretty notable. And apparently a number of editors have worked on the articles, enough to make a whole category. So I don't see the harm in keeping it. Also, Ni. Herostratus 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ram Mudambi

Non-notable professor. --Swpb 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep He's an established economics writer. Articles needs rewritten, tidied and linked. scope_creep 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep, and that's only if the article is rewritten, expanded, cleaned, wikified, linked, verified, and sourced, within the course of this AfD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mudambi&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 309 Google Scholar hits Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the linked search on Google Scholar is for the search term "Ram". A Search for "Ram Mudambi" in quotes shows 220 hits, not 309. At this point, it seems apparent that the article will be kept, and I have tried to wikify it somewhat, but I still feel this debate should give an accurate picture of the subject's notability. --Swpb 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - per ageoBakaman _Bakatalk 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"per ageo"? what arguement did ageo make in favor of keeping the article? The user merely listed the debate on a list of related debates, I fail to see how that is an arguement in favor of keeping the page. --Swpb 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but the article needs wikifyied by cleaning it up, expanding it and getting it better sources. If this isn't done by the end of the AfD in five days, I could support deletion. --The Way 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets requirements, the article needs some serious wikification though. Lankiveil 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong Keep- Noted Writer in economics journals. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - enough hits to warrant him being here, but it's a very weak article Pete Fenelon 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 23:05, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D-Trash Records

Non-notable record label. --Swpb 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nomimation. scope_creep 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, D-Trash is notable within the electronic music community. Phoeron 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Phoeron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - D-Trash is NOT notable within the electronic music community.Nor are you. This article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phoeron.--Hús ö nd 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I'm not an expert in electronica, but it seems like this label has enough notability to be worth saving. Article could use more work, though. Chubbles1212 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Elaragirl. Resolute 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No demonstration of notability, only references are the homepage and a blog. Most of the releases are CDr which means homemade. I will change my vote if I see evidence of notoriety. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Canadian electronica isn't my field but the distro page at DHR quotes reviews of their full-scale releases in Kerrang and Terrorizer, very much two of the leading publications in the field and ones based outside their native Canada at that. It seems they pass WP:MUSIC by dint of either has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network or has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network as a Google search proves the assertion in the article regarding their regular appearances on the Brave New Waves programme to be true, as an example, see here. So, Keep it is, I guess. Ac@osr 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (sorry, small edit required, misspelt link Ac@osr 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

D-Trash Records is one of the main, if not the only labels these days releasing Digital Hardcore music to date and has been an integral part of that genre of music's history, since 1998, almost 10 years now. D-TRASH has received many reviews in major publications, either local Canadian publications like Chart Magazine (circulation in the ten thousands), Exclaim Magazine (circulation in the hundreds of thousands, where D-Trash Records has received a full page article on their history in 2002), but also international publications like KERRANG, INDUSTRIAL NATION, SIDE-LINE, Rock Sound. Our music is registered within the archives of the Canadian National Library and also has received regular airplay on the nationwide Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CBC with Schizoid being requested to perform multiple hour-long DJ sets exclusively for the program. Schizoid of D-Trash Records is clearly listed on All Music Guide, a reference point for many music information queries. D-Trash Records's CDs are listed for sale on Itunes international digital music store, something very hard to attain for supposed 'unnotables', as well as Amazon.com. D-Trash Records has a North American wide distribution deal with Caroline Records meaning that you can go into any HMV anywhere in North America and buy a CD. Delete this entry if you will, but I think you should delete ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE artist and label page having anything to do with breakcore or the digital hardcore genre if you're going to delete this entry. There are far more labels and artists who are 'unknowns' and 'unnotable' than this entry. This wikipedia entry is by no means a vanity entry meant for empty self-congratulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizoid666 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 November 2006.
Delete unless notability established; the article currently offers no evidence of notability. The previous recommendation claims notability: if there is such evidence, please add it to the article, and if it checks out I'd support a keep. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep smaller label with an extensive release history. Distributed by the label that distributed acts like Atari Teenage Riot. Fits criteria 7, 11 of WP:MUSIC and I would argue as a small label with nearly 100 releases that they pass criteria 4 as well. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ponderosa Elementary School

Non-notable school, no sources, fails WP:SCHOOL. One of a group that was a contested prod. Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability asserts. scope_creep
Delete no assertion of notability. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep/merge per WP:SCHOOlS. Has an encylopedic history, no need to deprive readers of it. Kappa 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- What part of WP:SCHOOLS (which is only a PROPOSED guideline) warrants this being kept?
Delete Fails to assert notability.--Hús ö nd 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn elementary school Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete a building that fails to assert notability. Resolute 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is essentially an expanded phone book entry. -newkai t-c 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Searching for reliable sources is a bit difficult using google because there are multiple such schools (including it seems two by this name in California). If kept, this should be moved and "Ponderosa Elementary School" turned into a disambig page. That said, the only press coverage I can find is the article already mentioned at the bottom of the page which simply mentions the school in the context of an incident that occured on a school bus (from a different school). Thus, we have trouble getting any significant verifiable information. This is even before we get to questions of notability. Not surprisingly, the school has no real claims of notability, with no notable alumns, no notable awards, no athletes or teams that have performed at a notable level or anything else that might pass for notability. JoshuaZ 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per reasoning in the deletes above. If no other WP:V sources found it noteworthy, why should we? Fram 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no schools are notable. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable school, no reliable sources. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails to assert notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per, among others, the nom, Newkai, and Terence. -- Kicking222 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets content policies. Alternately, a merge to the community can be considered. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Another elementary school with an article? Again, it's bad enough that precedent has made it so virtually all high schools get articles, having articles for all elementary schools as well would be far worse. An elementary school is not inherently notable, and this school has nothing special about it as far as I can tell. --The Way 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if anything is worth noting here, then note it in the appropriate location article. Lankiveil 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No use of independent sources to tell us anything about this school. (Maybe someone should found Wikischools, with a GFDL compliant license so that all similar articles can be transwikied there.) GRBerry 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and does have secondary sources too Yuckfoo 19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: It doesn't meet the guidelines and policies, since the "seconday source" is a perfect example of a "passing mention", not a source about the school at all. Fram 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or merge and place a redirect to Spring Independent School District as suggested by WP:SCHOOLS and WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 22:28, 14 November 2006
Keep. The relevant information has already been merged to the school district article, but eventually we are going to reach a point where it is necessary to break that data out again into seperate articles, which would logically be sepereate school articles. Silensor 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Yamaguchi. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayesha Sana

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:BIO, article is unwikified, unsourced, unreferenced, a two line blurb about .. someone. Shrieking Harpy...... ^Talk^|^Count 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per failing WP:BIO it appears and also advise the author of the article to take a look at conflicts of interest (the author claimed Sana as a relative in some of the first edits to the article. Metros232 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now that some notability has been established. The AfDed state of this article was almost empty and devoid of content but this is much improved. Metros232 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes the key thing to learn from WP:COI is that if you want to make an article about a famous relative, you should never mention the fact. Kappa 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - If you read the interviews linked in the article, this person does not seem at all non-notable and probably does not fail WP:BIO. Although I understand there is probably a conflict of interest, the actress is notable and the article should be kept. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete breaks WP:BIO. Had a look at google India. No where to be seen. scope_creep 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps that's because she's Pakistani, not Indian. Regardless, I found some results on Google India. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:BIO. Maybe Scope should try googling the country she comes from. Kappa 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the world perspective of Wikipedia, she seems notable. It not matter which country the media/search engine is from. Needs sources, but is already tagged. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm a deletionist, I'll have to say ~~tentative~~ keep. While the article doesn't give the impression of a notable person, several websites I've found via Google show that she is as notable as the average actress who has been in several films. I'll give it a go at cleanup, sourcing, and expansion soon, and if that doesn't work out, I'll switch to supporting deletion. Picaroon9288 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep from the above arguments. I removed most of the tags because they were excessive (ie, we don't need wikify and cleanup tags for a one-line stub). --Wafulz 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep I also am a deletionist, and put a db-bio on this article at the start, I then found enough to change my mind and remove the tag hoping the article would get better. But it still really needs to be filled out. I'd like to see this Afd end undecided, so that if someone comes along later and the article has not improved it can get speedy deleted wihout issues. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. The main article is a rediculous 21 words long. If it were expanded and wiki-ized, I could see myself voting 'keep'. Spinach Dip 10:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe Picaroon has that covered already. Also, being short is not a reason for deletion. --Wafulz 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, though an urgent expansion on the article is needed. Seems notable with the amount of Google hits I get. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question what does Ayesha Sana have to do with India? Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Kappa 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"
Okay, I've done some cleanup and expansion. Keepable now. Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough. Lankiveil 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep seems notable, and there might not be a whole lot on her in English. I mean, we have an article on Eric Roberts, for goodness sake. But it could use more expanding.Phyesalis 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it could've been much longer. But there was a dearth of reliable sources to be found, and I adhere closely to that guideline (Even the ones I did cite aren't as solid-looking as I hoped.) I leave it in the hands of Wikipedians who speak Urdu, because I don't know a single non-proper noun in that language. Picaroon9288 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you put a call out to Urdu speakers for contributions? Given all the insignificant U.S. actors covered, I think this article contributes to the cultural diversity of WP. Maybe you could add info about Lollywood, give the article more context? Phyesalis 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Just this year Dawn called her "one of (Pakistan's) busiest and most bankable models" [15] (link from article) -- Shunpiker 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. She is a moderately known actress in Pakistan though has no super fame. --Marwatt 17:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- notable bio. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- She's pretty notable, she's the only actress mentioned under 21st Century Cinema on the Cinema of Pakistan page:

    In July 2002, Javed Sheikh's Yeh Dil Aap Ka Huwa [1] (Urdu for This Heart is Yours) starring Moammar Rana and Ayesha Sana, was released and
    had grossed over Rs. 200 million (US $3.4 million) across Pakistan. However, the short period of successes in the industry could not keep the 
    cinemas afloat and the same industry that at one time produced more than a 100 films annually a decade ago now reduced to a merely 32 in the 
    year 2003 with only one partial success called Larki Panjaban (A Punjabi Girl).
    Phyesalis 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do all of those statements have sources? Picaroon9288 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be a notable actress in Pakistan. --Oakshade 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a notable Pakistani actress who easily meets our WP:BIO criteria. Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Phoeron

Non-notable personality, fails WP:V, WP:BIO Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability assertion. Guys only been on the music scence for a year. scope_creep

I am notable enough. I have had reviews published in SOD Magazine, Terrorizer, and SpaceJunkies.net. And that's two years, Scope Creep. Phoeron 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I've had articles published at the Washington Post, for Time Magazine, and in two books of poetry I've published, but I feel it's the very height of surfeited self-fluffery to make an article about myself. The last person who should determine you are notable is you. Please provide independant sources asserting your notability.K thx bye. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Swpb 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Flagrant WP:COI, fails WP:BIO.--Hús ö nd 03:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Resolute 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Vanity boosterism page. Robovski 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - self-admitted conflict of interest. MER-C 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I'm at least as notable as this fellow, which is to say, that he's not very notable at all. Lankiveil 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong and Speedy Delete - walks all over WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:V and notability - seems to be self-penned self-promotion. Pete Fenelon 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the time to read over Wikipedia policy, and I have to agree now, that this article should be deleted for the reasons given above. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. Phoeron 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator, subject of article agrees to this as well so perhaps speedy delete. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was include. That this meets WP:WEB by being distributed in the Ottawa Herald wasn't disputed. I think merging is possible, and of couse tagging/rewriting or the article as appropriate should be done, but the topic seems to meet the applicable inclusion guideline. W.marsh 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Bunnies

Delete. A comic strip that appears in one newspaper (since May of this year) and has been a webcomic since a couple of days ago. A Google search for "Cyrus Oliver"+"Funny Bunnies" produces 1 Google hit, although the article's author claims to have found 88 hits. Searching for "Funny Bunnies"+comic only shows 2 relevant hits in the first 5 pages. ... discospinster _talk 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability assertion. Its a simple advert. Delete. scope_creep 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and a fan of the said comic strip. Personally, I joined in hopes of adding articles for the category of animated films, but daunted by the idea I decided to start with a simpler concept and, just recently viewing the Funny Bunnies website, considered it to be a good start. I did find 88 hits when searching Google, but the relevancy of them is debatable. Having no connection to the author of this strip other than an exchange of a few emails the past week, I have no problems with this Wikipedia article being deleted. Whether or not it will be is up to administration. Thank you for your time.

Kirisutokyoo

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maybe in a couple of years it will become notable, but it's not there just yet. Shimeru 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete give it time, will support its inclusion once it's in a few more newspapers. Lankiveil 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep, meets WP:WEB, which I belive would be the standard used here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into an article about the Ottawa Herald until it becomes otherwise notable or syndicated. Yamaguchi先生 22:48, 14 November 2006
Delete – I was intrigued by the assertion this article met WP:WEB. Google says “bunny bunnies” without being limited to comics, gets only 35,000 general hits, of which only 767 are distinct. An examination of the 767 hits, which is pretty tiny in the WWW scheme of things, shows a lot of mention for an unrelated book of the same name. Alexa shows the webcomic’s site is not in their top 100,000 ranks, even allowing for the fact it doesn’t take a lot of visits to move up. However, neither Google nor Alexa are final arbiters of notability per WP:WEB. WP:WEB says the comic needs to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works; the content/website needs to have won some well-known and independent award; and, the content is distributed by a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. Of these three conditions, the third is clearly met by the Ottawa Herald. The comic however fails to show being the subject of any non-trivial published works, nor does the website or comic boast any well-known, independent awards. “funny bunnies”+”cyrus oliver” gets only three hits, two being the author’s website and the third being a Xanga page. I parenthetically note the article also fails the general WP:NOT. Tychocat 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEB says that it meets the criteria if it meets any one of the listed. Even you admit it meets #3. If the article is violating WP:NOT, then some editing can be done to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steffan Browning

This person isn't notable. Fails WIKI:BIO Stood for parliament on a minor party ticket, with very little likelihood of gaining election. This person is of minor interest in Green Party circles, but not generally. Self-promotion.

Delete Fails all notability assertions. scope_creep 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. It isn't self promotion, the article was written along with articles about very many of the candidates in the New Zealand general election, 2005. Since he wasn't elected, and doesn't appear to have come to the public eye since, I agree with the deletion.-gadfium 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Being a candidate confers no inherent notability. Get elected first, or do something more notable than running a shop. Caknuck 05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GringoInChile 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If mere candidacy was sufficient, Wikipedia would be filled with tens of thousands of names of obscure and failed politicians, running for parliament, regional legislatures, and district commissions from Alberta to Zanzibar. This entry is comparable to the hundreds of backup dancers, actors without speaking parts, and other non-celebrities who have created self-referential and derivative entries about themselves, hoping that asserting their own fame will lead to its achievement. ArkansasRed 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn unelected politician. Come back when you get elected. Lankiveil 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miesiac

del some neopaganic speculations. "Mesiac" simply means moon or month in several Slavic languages. Of course, there is some mythology about Sun and Moon, but this article is hoppeless. While it is a rather harmless text, in view of the current drive for article quality it has to go. I could have suggested to move it under some resonable title, kinda Slavic Moon deities, but it sits he in unverified state for like 3 years now. `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article is still been developed. Give it some time to add sources etc and further wikification. scope_creep 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Developed? You must be kidding. Did you check the contributions in its history? Any`'mikkanarxi 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Shit I never saw the contros going that far back. I still think we should keep it, If sources are found. scope_creep 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, perhaps merge to a more general article, but only if this god(dess) has believers (verifiable ones!). Otherwise, Delete. --humblefool ® 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as far as I know, there is nothing like this in the real Slavic mythology; the article does not cite sources, and therefore I suppose that it is realy a modern speculation and/or original research of the author.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per Ioannes Pragensis I've never come across anything resembling this. Nuttah68 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March Hare Software

Not notable per WP:CORP RossPatterson 02:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable (A7) or as advertisement (G11) or just Delete per all that. Xtifr _tälk 11:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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:Speedily deleted - vanity. - Mike Rosoft 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Rosenberg

Appears to be a vanity page. The article is about 10-year old Ryan Rosenberg, aka "Reeshan", and coincidentally, the user who created the page is also named Reeshan. Google searches turn up no information about him. Walkiped 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity page per nom. Robovski 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete (A7) Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Participation in film likely a hoax, Google search for "Ryan Rosenberg"+"The Dead Silence" renders this article as the only result.--Hús ö nd 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Blatant and pointless. Spinach Dip 10:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ec10

I do not think that a class nearly everyone has to take is actually notable CobaltBlueTony 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, a college course in of itself is nn notable.--Dakota 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Every college in the country has an intro to economics course. Fan-1967 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Hús ö nd 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think a class specific to one single university is notable. You'd have to be a Harvard student to even know what "Ec10" means. JIP | Talk 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Fan-1967. Individual college courses should not be considered notable enough to warrant articles in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Adding trivial article after article after article about extremely minor American phenomena is IMO creating systemic bias. Would the creator of this article like to create similar articles for every introductory course in every university on Earth? --Charlene 08:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --Oakshade 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radisson Riverfront Hotel Windsor

Non-notable hotel; the hole in the ground next to it may be a local political issue that deserves an article, but the hotel itself is just another Radisson. Brianyoumans 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom; it's nonsense. - CobaltBlueTony 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Tenth, soon-to-be-11th tallest building in Windsor. Uh, no. Nor is a visible logo the same as a landmark. [16] --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikitravel. Nothing special about this hotel. --Oakshade 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We can't transwiki to Wikitravel. --Coredesat 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete A building which fails to assert significance. Resolute 05:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not really meet the notability criteria, nothing significant of the hotel. So what if the Radisson logo can be seen from Detroit? I can see Batam from Sentosa on a clear day. Nothing notable at all. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom -- Whpq 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete there is nothing notable about this building, even under WP:LOCAL.--Isotope23 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep... I guess that's pretty clear! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike the Headless Chicken

The article's legitimate reference was a broken link to the Guinness Book of World Records. I went to find the link manually through their page and through Google, with no luck. Indeed, searching for "headless chicken -mike" didn't turn up many results. Delete unless someone can turn up some legitimate evidence.

Note that I am also nominating Lloyd Olsen as it's pretty much an extension of this article. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The link to The Straight Dope article suggests that only 2/3rds of the chicken's head was cut off, but the pictures seem to show total decapitation. Is that an inconsistentcy or is my knowledge of poultry biology lacking? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are right, but you are thinking of the neck/head region as a human has as opposed to how a chicken has. The actual decapitation was across the very back of the head, leaving (very likely) the parts of the brain needed for more automatic processes. Imagine you are decapitated but with the blade falling down through the back of your head behind the ears.Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Notable (if extremely odd) cultural phenomenon. The Straight Dope article shows that Mike has been covered in Life magazine as well as a Garrison Keillor book. I do however support a merge of the Lloyd Olsen article into Mike's article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Further research reveals a salon article celebrating Mike's holiday, and a documentary film availabe on DVD entitled Chick Flick: The Miracle Mike Story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Ah, cool. So the question I have then is whether this is a hoax or not. If it is, I understand that it'll still be notable considering what you discovered there. If not, then I stand astounded. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I think the Straight Dope column puts to rest any possibility that it was a hoax: as Cecil writes, "This sort of thing evidently occurs fairly often. When Dear Abby ran a column on it a while back she got clippings and eyewitness reports about headless-but-living chickens from all over the country." So not only isn't it fake, it's not even unique or all that uncommon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - ...and besides that, Olsen charged 25 cents to see Mike and supposedly made $4500 a month for 18 months, quite a pretty penny in those days. By rough estimate, and counting paying customers only, that means at least 325,000 saw Mike up close and in person. There's a whole lot of eyewitnesses to Mike's realness out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Cool. That's good enough for me. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep There's enough reliable evidence that a festival in Mike's honour exists, whether the story is true or not. However, in my opinion either the story should not be stated as fact or some reference to its truth should be found. --HarrisX 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Mike has appeared in a book by Karl Kruszelnicki, who is nice enough to include full references in said books. In particular, his story has appeared in Life magazine (22 October 1945), and he's had a book written about him (Teri Thomas, The Official Mike the Headless Chicken Book - A 1940s Tale of Two Men and a Chicken), so I don't think WP:V is in any trouble here. And if anyone can track down either of those sources, they can be used to bolster the article and probably provide some evidence as to the truth of Mike's existence. Confusing Manifestation 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Weird but true, subject of several news items in it's day, rather notable. Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep It is no hoax Konman72 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep This article is not a hoax. Also, I Googled "Mike the Headless Chicken" and many results turned up relating to this chicken. - King Ivan 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep the chicken and merge the farmer. Caknuck 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mike but verify first. Pcu123456789 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - of course - what a silly nomination - this is a really interesting piece. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mike has been researched and verified by many secondary sources, including Guinness, The Straight Dope, and Steve Silverman[17]. --Charlene 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the thing on Mike is true, it appeared in the Guinness and many other reliable places. The article is not a hoax, and a Google search tells it all, notable rooster. In the case of Lloyd, merge it to any appopriate article, or else delete it. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think this article is clearly not a hoax as there are several reliable sources stating that it is true, so it should be kept. But merge Lloyd Olsen into this article. - # BROWNSAY SOMETHING!!! | 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mike, Redirect Lloyd. DCEdwards1966 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep -- for what it's worth now. I actually looked this article up a few months ago and it was extremely useful - mainly for the fact I didn't believe the story when it was mentioned on a TV programme. Bubba hot ep 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Although this may be more of a reflection of what a sad bunch of people we are here in colorado, this story receives nearly annual coverage in major newspapers, and I believe there is now a festival 'Headless chicken days' MNewnham 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep The Straight Dope has investigated the story and they reference a 1945 Life article about it. I have also heard about this and read Mike's story in more than one book (though I can't recall the titles, sorry). Even IF the story is not true the legend is common enough that it deserves an entry in Wikipedia. --six.oh.six 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Yes, what he said. I have certainly heard of the chicken as well, and even if it is a hoax, it is indeed a common cultural meme and should be kept. -Edlin2 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I hadn't heard of this before, but quite a good story, and a well-written article. Lankiveil 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep Well-known oddity. Kinda like a particularly famous internet meme, except of course he was around quite some time before the internet. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Per Edlin2 Armanalp 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Well-known story, strong support, endearing chicken. Shari 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep It's a true story about an important popular culture phenomenon. *jb 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — It's actually quite notable, and I've heard of this from numerous different sources. Poor chicken, though. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I think at this point we can snowball this AFD. We've had a number of references added to the article and everything from Lloyd Olsen has already been merged. I think we're all in agreement here if we keep Mike and delete Lloyd? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've seen this on the news multiple times over the years, so it's definitely notable. Xuanwu 09:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Not a Hoax and after all Wikipedia is an encylopedia so people will be looking at this article. Dep. Garcia 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and merge what's salvageable into RuneScape. Naconkantari 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape economy

There has not been enough written about this subject to make it verifiable, and I don't belive it is notable enough for inclusion anyway. The economy of a game does not deserve its own article. There was a previous AfD debate which reached no consensus, which I will find the link to. Amarkov ^babble 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this article has had a previous AfD discussion (albeit bundled in with a bunch of other stuff), which can be found here. -Amarkov ^babble 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There's very little here that isn't just boiled down general economic theory. --humblefool ® 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete little of this is RuneScape-specific, and the general topic is better covered (and far better referenced) at Virtual economy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, we don't need such a specific topic on RuneScape's economy. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Because this is a part of a series about different aspect of the game, we should judge them all together, I think. Why to delete "economy" and let "weaponry"?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because last time that was tried,it ended up in a big huge mess. See the previous AfD discussion I cited. -Amarkov ^babble 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- - Just because one article was deleted for a certain reason doesn't mean it should be apply to all articles. I beleive that these discussions should be about the article itself rather then comparing it to other AfDs. --Pinkkeith 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape weaponry and RuneScape armour are being merged and redirected to RuneScape combat soon, rewritten to be much more encyclopedic. No need to worry about it much longer. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into RuneScape, there's plenty of space in there now. Was it this article or RuneScape community or both that were split from the main to keep the page size below 35kb? Meh. A good replacement could be, in the main article; a {{seealso}} to Virtual economy (per Starblind) and a short paragraph about how RS differs from other MMORPGs - ie, having a worryingly large arms trade, and trading fish. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Seems for too crufty for my liking. The Kinslayer 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to virtual economy. Garrett^Talk 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I feel that redirect would not be useful. The article you wish to redirect it to is a general article about virtual economy while the current article is a specific discussion about the economy of one MMORG. Your suggestion would be the same as saying delete Economy of North America and redirect it to World economy. --Pinkkeith 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point! I've changed my mind on this (see below). Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per User:CaptainVindaloo. --Pinkkeith 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to RuneScape with a {{seealso}} to virtual economy to identify the non-unique features of the economy. Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge or Delete - where this isn't elementary it's of no interest beyond players of the game. Belongs somewhere else. Pete Fenelon 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - Much of the information is knowledge that even non-playing users would like to know about, so I do not feel that it should be deleted as funcruft. Mamyles^Talk 5:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to RuneScape and then redirect to RuneScape. Info is fair enough, but probably doesn't merit an article of its own. --Czj 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete too much fancruft to be useful

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Charak

This 18 year old rookie soap star, who got there by winning an online reality contest, and was introduced into a soap at the end of September 2006. He has all of 80 unique Ghits. He's not notable, yet. Delete. Ohconfucius 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Soaps aren't my bag, but a recurring role on As the World Turns is pretty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This guy has a recurring role on a major television show, ATWT (he's been on six episodes, all in the fall of 2006), and therefore passes WP:BIO. If the role is eliminated, then we can revisit this. --Charlene 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, having a role on ATWT is notable. I do see an IMDB page, so in one way or another this guy is notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - recurring role on a TV series -- Whpq 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a name likely to be looked up by encyclopedia users. Carold e rmoid (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not particularly notable yet but as far as this article goes it's well written and causes no problems with WP:BIO.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rane Helms

Appears to be a vanity page. On the creator's user page, he claims to wrestle under the name of "Rane". The article says Rane Helms' official web page is www.mstsage.com, and that his myspace page is myspace.com/mstsage. So clearly the user who created the page is Rane Helms. Other than myspace pages, Google turned up no verifiable information on this person. Walkiped 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete (A7) NN and blatant WP:COI.--Hús ö nd 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just because you know HTML doesn't mean your group of friends is a wrestling federation. Caknuck 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. A completely useless vanity page. Spinach Dip 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, vanity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Life Community Church

Article on a local church that reads like a directory/advertisement (violating the policy on what Wikipedia is not) and that contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Claims to have been around for 75 years. I endorsed a prod by another user, it was removed with out adding anything I can see as a claim to notability. GRBerry 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete there are many churches with that name and this one is very nn. Delete per Wikipedia is not. meshach 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN church. Article does read a bit like an ad.--Hús ö nd 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. The most interesting thing in this article is the statement "After the trialing period the church is slowly regaining members". But it's not explained what "trialing" is. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn church, advertisement, biased tone. Most local churches are non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, but only after free turkey dinner day. MNewnham 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nothing notable about this church. Lankiveil 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong Speedy delete. NN, ad, biased, SkierRMH 07:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
delete as the orig. PRODer DesertSky85451 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete. NN, and only of very minor local interest Pete Fenelon 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability - how is it different than the millions of other churches in the world? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: Speedily deleted as nonsense, and redirected to Haunted hayride. - Mike Rosoft 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haunted hay ride

No ghits for this, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete current contents, Redirect to Haunted hayride. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I doubt if this is even a real term. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Shave and redirect. How does this crap get all the way to Afd? --- RockMFR 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and recreate as a redirect to Haunted hayride. --Coredesat 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and then redirect per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm actually amazed that this isn't up for speedy deletion. A completely useless 20-word article. Spinach Dip 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would've happily speedy tagged it, but what would it fit under? It's not really nonsensical (the text is coherent, even if silly), and there's no "no assertion of notability" category for neologisms. WP:CSD specifically states that even obvious hoaxes aren't speedy candidates just due to the hoax factor. It also seems to provide enough context not to fit under {{db-blank}}, even if barely. As many of these as there are, I think "neologism that doesn't assert notability" should be a speedy criterion, but as of now it's not. If you know of one that does fit though, let me know, I see a lot of this stuff on NP patrol-usually the prod just gets left, but in this case it didn't. Seraphimblade 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - It doesn't fit the criteria exactly, but it is partly nonsensical, un-notable, and has virtually no context. In my opinion, that should make it worthy of a speedy deletion. Spinach Dip 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying {{db-nonsense}}. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as having no meaningful content. So tagged. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this has now been added to WP:BJAODN. --- RockMFR 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: Speedily deleted: no context - unsourced neologism. - Mike Rosoft 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apeist

Delete Dicdef or neologism. Ohconfucius 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense and probable hoax. I wanted to tag this for "Speedy", but none of the categories seem quite right. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete ~~or Merge~~ ~~with speciesism, if it is really a word.~~ Chubbles1212 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I misread the article. Nonsense. Chubbles1212 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As a student of Biology, I can say this definition is complete BS. Spinach Dip 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furcadia

Article does not assert notability. Fails WP:WEB and notability/verifiability guidelines. Anomo 04:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Furcadia is one of the furry community's largest well, community online. There are 2500 to 4000 members online at one given time (There are 4600 online right now). It has also been around since 1996. It's not as if Furcadia is relatively recent, or even rarely known. I'll help contribute to make the article better, but its more helpful if people HELP and add stuff to the article, than suggest deletion. Disinclination 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not based on number of people on the site, or length of time existing. It's based on the presence of multiple reliable secondary sources, which simply do not exist here. -Amarkov ^babble 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then why don't you, or other people who wish to delete this article help out instead of voting it to be deleted? Disinclination 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - *wham* *wham* *wham* Now that I've finished banging my head on the desk...
  - The issue is not that the article should be rewritten. The issue is that the subject itself is not notable. I'm beginning to get really annoyed by people who seem to think that articles should never be deleted, just rewritten. -Amarkov ^babble 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Honestly, as I am reading the several links given about why this article should be deleted, how it is -not- notiable. Yes, there are several articles about furry and whatnot. And Furcadia is a massive community, not just a website. It is stated under history, and other sections about what makes Furcadia unique and notiable, as far as I can understand. Disinclination 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete A furry website among many. No verification that this one's particularly notable. Fan-1967 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep I'm amazed at that the assertion that this is non-notable. This is not a website. It's an MMO that's been running for the last nine years, and which has over 3,000 players online at this very moment. Finalist for the 9th IGDA awards, see associated coverage at GameSpy. Unrelated interview at GameDev.net. Its predecessor DragonSpires was mentioned in Wired magazine. Google results: about 232,000. GreenReaper 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've always heard it wasn't good that basically it had no gameplay aspect at all. Then I looked and saw it had no media references. Greenreaper, those references of awards and interviews should have been in the article. Anomo 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  
  Gameplay is provided by scripts that execute on objects within the world. I guess the people who you heard that from never went to go and play in one of those areas, or just didn't like them. Like Second Life, it is not exactly a game so much as an online interaction space. People do tend to roleplay there, there's a system called Furre! based on the Pocket Universe RPG rules, and the popular webcomic Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures is based on it. And yes, they should have been in the article, and they weren't, but they can be now. GreenReaper 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment An awful lot of furry related articles seemed to be getting nominated today. Robovski 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Second the comment At any given time there are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could reasonably be reviewed for deletion and it does look highly suspect when several of them from a related subject area get nominated at about the same time, at least when the articles in question have existed for many months (in some cases over a year) and were developed and maintained independently of one another. Mwalimu59 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment That's because no one has suggested it before. I did, and people took up on it. Perhaps it's long overdue. Furries aren't super-well known after all. Miltopia 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Popculturecruft. An MMO is not inherently notable, and very well may be the opposite. Not encyclopedia content. --Charlene 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete since there appear to be no non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, so we cannot verify the neutrality of the article. Also appears to fail WP:WEB. Guy 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Long-running MMO, has been covered per GreenReaper. Needs cleanup, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Perfectly verifiable. Shimeru 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedia content. Biased sources. The only people that would look it up on Wikipedia are the players themselves because its userbase is so minor. Karozoa 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I'm seeing plenty of reliable sources. Richard A. Bartle's book "Designing Virtual Worlds" (ISBN 0131018167) cites it as being among the first graphical worlds to allow player-created construction. Jeannie Novak's "Game Development Essentials: An Introduction" (ISBN 1401862713) shows its community-building features. It even gets a current Google News hit, although that doesn't look promising. I know it's had some magazine coverage as well, being one of the first large graphical free MMORPGs. Definitely notable, definitely verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is one of the remaining MMOs, I agree with Starblind, its verifiable and notable. If this has been nominated for deletion, why not its developer and its chairperson get sent for AFD as well? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It has received media attenttion, and it seems to have historical value for innovations in gaming. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Don't know much about furries, but I've heard of it, and it appears to have some significance in this minority community. WMMartin 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per GreenReaper. This is verifiable and clearly a significant online community, so there appears to be no compelling reason for deletion. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, furcruft. Lankiveil 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong Keep It is notable. There is much discussion in the tech world about getting women into designing and gaming. Over half of Furcadia's players are women. I'll look for some stuff to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep actually due to it's narrow targetted audience. Activity seems to be comparable to Habbo, if the top commenter is right with his/her numbers. I would know because I'm closing the pools as we speak. I think most of Wikipedia's furry-related articles need to go, but not this one. Miltopia 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Pretty sure this is notable, I've seen it talked about in quite a few places over the web. The Kinslayer 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
keep per Starblind's sources. Again, the criterion is verifiability, not whether the article currently has sources. — brighterorange (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per User:Starblind. Also, the nominator doesn't make any comments why the user feels it isn't notable. I think Starblind made the best effort to estabilish notability. --Pinkkeith 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as this game has received media and book coverage. I'm not a player and I'd heard of it. It seems notable enough to me, though could perhaps do with some of those references being added to the article. Polenth 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, has anyone else who has voted "Delete" here had their user page "modified"? Really mature, furries. Lankiveil 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
- THAT'S going to get lots of keep votes... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Without speculating on whether the person doing this is a furry fan or not (I haven't looked), I'll just say that if some individual is not following the rules they should be dealt with appropriately. --Mwalimu59 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it's just you. I think I prefer it when they take the time to register accounts. GreenReaper 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, there's also this: User:Miltopia. Lankiveil 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
    - If he didn't want to "bring his personal baggage" to Wikipedia, he shouldn't have made a public post telling people to "plz help to keep the furfags down", and pointing to Wikipedia's deletion review. It's kinda hard to assume good faith after you see that. GreenReaper 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Nom fails to assert valid reason for deletion. Also keep per Starblind's excellent arguments. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep.~~ Delete. ~~WP:WEB doesn't apply to this as Furcadia isn't a website.~~ Besides, it's a mildly popular MMO with thousands of users logged on at any given time. Though I do think this article goes into unnecessary detail which would serve a much better purpose at WikiFur. --Donbert 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Going back and looking at WP:WEB, I realized it applies to "web-specific content," so it does indeed apply to Furcadia. --Donbert 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a website. MMORPGs are still websites. And the number of people who play is irrelevant to whether or not there are multiple reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Which there are, per Starblind. Shimeru 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - MMORPGs are websites? MMORPG means "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". Simply because a game is online doesn't mean it's web-specific. Examples: World of Warcraft, Second Life, Guild Wars. -kotra 09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep 1. Debatable whether this is covered under WP:WEB. Note online-games/virtual worlds aren't mentioned as an example, 2. Notability and historical significance has been confirmed by the list of articles/websites/etc. quoted by GreenReaper and Starblind, 3. even if it is considered to be covered under WP:WEB, point 2 verifies its notability. Regardless on what people's views are on "furries", Furcadia is notable and hence the original recommendation to delete, is moot. --Rambutaan 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um... You can't declare someone's opinion moot simply because you disagree, no matter how well-founded your disagreement is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Why would WP:WEB apply to a MMOG that's not web-based? Because it has a website? It seems to me that the people who are citing WP:WEB might not know that Furcadia exists as a standalone client, not on the web. Notability? 60,000+ active players, being one of the early pioneers of the MMOSG genre, lasting 9+ years with no interruption and continuing to grow (no small feat for a video game), and even being a finalist for an award (albiet a minor one) combine to make it seem pretty notable, don't you think? As for verifiability, 3 or 4 good sources and a 3+ more okay sources is quite a bit better than most video game articles. If you think this article isn't well sourced, take a look here. Afd a few dozen video game articles with much fewer sources if it makes you feel good. ...Or, you could actually improve Wikipedia by helping to make articles better. (strike that, evidently Inclusionism is taboo) -kotra 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, do we really need a page for every minor bit of "furry culture"? A few offhand mentions in a couple of books, no major awards to speak of, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, and a very loyal, but very small fanbase. Doesn't add up to notability to me. MichelleG 09:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep per the above commenters. Is there a discrimination taking place against these people? It seems like it. Yamaguchi先生 22:39, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labyrinth - A novel about the Software Industry

Self-published by vanity press iUniverse, Inc., ranked 2,138,129 at Amazon for the paperback, no ranking for the hardback. Non-notable author whose homepage is at angelfire. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This book was published by Writers Workshop Kolkata, a small but prestigious publisher who published authors like Vikram Seth for the first time. Due to the limited distribution of Writers Workshop, this was republished.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanturner25 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 November 2006

Delete - non-notable. Wait until it's a bestseller. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability for the book or the author. Wait until it's even a decent seller, or gets reviewed by notable publications. Fan-1967 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is an Indian novel. Do we know whether or not it's a good seller in India, or are we basing "notability" on US notability? --Charlene 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The author is originally from India, but the bookseller links are purely American. No indications of any Indian publication or distribution. Fan-1967 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete 32 ghits, nothing but booksellers. MER-C 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Nothing but prestigious. Bubba hot ep 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, until this can be properly sourced. Not asking for a bestseller, but appropriate coverage by a third party would suffice. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apoorva Joshi

likely hoax:

151 unique Ghits, none relevant except the wikipedia article.
"Apoorva Joshi" + reptile and "Apoorva Joshi" + veterinary scored only the wiki article
Most of the people of that name, including the most prominent Head of Operations at the Indian Consulate of Congo, are male.
nohits on National Geographic
Worldcat search for Snakes of India showed no hits (out of 125) for that author; apoorva joshi zero hits.
the article's author User:Manans is a single purpose account with no other edits.

Delete Ohconfucius 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless some proof against nn is produced meshach 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Cribananda 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Needs verifiability from independent sources. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete -as per all.Nileena joseph 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per the nominator. --Marwatt 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator, probable hoax. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Irey

Failed US house election canidate. Lost by a huge margin; she had 39% and Jack Murtha had 61%.[18] She got media attention in the election for attacking Murtha's character.[19] County commissioners are not notable. Arbusto 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I changed the percentage (was 22%, is now 39%), per the cited reference. The 22% figure is the winning margin of Murtha's, not Irey's percentage of the vote. I personally don't think that changes anything, and am voting (below) for redirecting to Murtha's page. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep ...did you really just cite two sources about her and then immediately turn around and claim she isn't notable? -Amarkov ^babble 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Every single 435 house election will have coverage on the people who ran via election results, which includes independents of minor political parties. Should every single failed congressional canidate from all parties from all elections be included on wikipedia? Arbusto 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... yes, if there are sources... -Amarkov ^babble 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean IF? Every single person of every single party is listed at CNN.com and each state election website. Every single canidate, by definition has been interviewed by a newspaper and has a mention at databased like CNN.com. Every failed house canidate is not notable. Arbusto 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant. In my opinion, something is notable if it has multiple reliable secondary sources about it. -Amarkov ^babble 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The bar down my street has several reliable secondary sources about it because it sold to a minor and got its liquor license revoked, by your standards it deserves an article. Hell, my father owns a liquor store and its been in the newspapers and such on several occassions as well, so it apparently deserves an article as well. Fortunately, verifiability is not the only requirement for something or someone getting an article, it also needs to be notable which this person is not. Delete. --The Way 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete you are confusing verifiable which is what the sources give you, i.e she does exist and she did run, with notable, i.e. has she done anything other than just stand and engage the media during that standing. Specifically for politicians the guidelines state

Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability

so she ran and failed (and what politician doesn't bad mouth the opposition) so non-notable--Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Steve. TJ Spyke 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If she's in stories about losing to Murtha, it's everything to do with Murtha and nothing to do with her, since the actual subject of said stories is, in fact, Murtha. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedent and WP:BIO. We remove articles on failed candidates for New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc. elections unless they're otherwise notable; American failed candidates should not be accorded special status. --Charlene 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No indication of any notability once her concession speech was over. I expect we'll be seeing a lot of these now that the US elections are over, and any candidate whose only notability was the campaign should be removed. (I live in a district that is considered such a lock that, amazingly, no one ever even created an article for the Democrat who volunteered as this year's sacrificial lamb. One less to delete.) Fan-1967 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. I'm going to incorporate a bit of information from the article into the Murtha article, and suggest redirecting the Irey article into that. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, at least for now. You guys are seriously suggesting that a House of Representatives candidate who got a non-trivial number of votes, and lost the election that happened only three days ago should be deleted? Like lots of marginally-notable recent news events, she should probably stick around for a few weeks or months at least. -- Plutor ^talk 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. She received heavy media attention in her race to oust Murtha.--Tdl1060 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think I want to vote delete but will abstain for now. Her notability is primarily derived from her opponent rather than anything she did. All references to her relate to the race rather than the candidate. So she in and of herself is not notable as a candidate. I do not know if someone can establish any notable action as a county commissioner (which is a reasonably powerful job in PA since counties are governed by a tribunal ith minimal checks and balances). If so I could consider supporting a keep since the totality of her political career would push her over the top in my opinion. Montco 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Steve, failed political attempt. Nuttah68 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Her notability didn't disappear Wednesday morning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- she's been a county commissioner (an elected position) for 10 years, and was the youngest person and only woman ever to be elected so in that county; and for other reasons as stated above: look at the totality of her career, not just a single failed Congressional race. (Other odds 'n ends: over 250K g-hits; "Diana Irey came as close as anyone in the past 32 years to defeating Murtha" [20]); etc. -- Sholom 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above, especially User:Plutor
Keep. Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 14 November 2006
Strong Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that this coverage is EXPECTED by the world outside AfD. Unfocused 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can't keep based on coverage you expect will soon be available. It can be recreated then, but it may well lack sources NOW. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The coverage required to verify is included in comments above. The point I'm making is that the outside world already expects us to have at least basic coverage of all congressional challengers. Un focused 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that was what you were saying. It's still not an argument for keeping, but the coverage required is indeed mentioned above. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The outside world is our audience. If not for them, who are we writing for? This is certainly a valid argument for keeping because it is central to the mission of the project! Un focused 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin McNevis

Arrrgh, maties, another pirate story! Ho-ho-ho-ho-hoax and a bottle of rum, he sailed the internet blue with nary a ghit in sight. Also died of eating poisoned haggis. Tubezone 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Arrgh, matey! Walk the plank! Or delete. --- RockMFR 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Avast! Delete this article down to Davy Jones' Locker, arr!. Unverifiable hoax. --Coredesat 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yer be wantin' to delete this load o' bilgewater, mateys. --Charlene 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Total nonsense. Spinach Dip 09:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Article should walk the plank ...and please BJAODN discussion afterwards. --Ouro 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete abject nonsense that is not even close to being historically accurate. Nuttah68 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The references to Ben Nevis, treasure maps and poisoned haggis scream hoax. AlmostReadytoFly 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, Ben Nevis, a mighty mount she be. But this arrrrghticle, she blows! Scuttle her quick to the briny deep, I say! Tubezone 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Yarr, hoax ahoy! Lankiveil 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong and Speedy Delete - fancruft? children's stories? Not needed here. Pete Fenelon 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of viruses from Mega Man Battle Network

Barely populated and NN fancruft Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is just like the "List of how XXX dies"-type article nominated above. -newkai t-c 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete even though I love the MMBN series...... --- RockMFR 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - useless, incomplete and crufty list. MER-C 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 13:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, totally full of cruft. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete -as per all. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Jordan

Not notable - Does not appear to meet WP:PORN BIO. IMDB lists 18 films] Ohconfucius 05:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Tutmosis 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lankiveil 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete -- no assertion of notability. Haikupoet 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree she does not fulfill the criteria of WP:PORN BIO. --Marwatt 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of British words not widely used in the United States

transwiki If it is not wiktionary then I am ballerina. Also, who says they are not widely used? How they are selected? (Why there is no "phocodontia" in this list? I don't think it is used very widely in the United States.) If it is said in a book, then such list is most probably a copyvio, because selection of a list is copyrightable, but never mind. This is just a category for wiktionary. `'mikkanarxi 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As some of the entries demonstrate, what is widely used is a matter of opinion. -Amarkov ^babble 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Note that the article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. It is probably worth reviewing the debate from then: here is a Wikilink :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British words not widely used in the United States. WLD 07:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but prune ruthlessly to remove words which are used in the US, but with different meanings. AlexTiefling 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but somebody should go through this and remove some of the bowdlerized definitions. For instance, balls-up has nothing to do with snow balling up in horses' hooves - it actually does come from testicles per three book references I have. The story given in the definition (at least before I deleted it) is a very well-known Victorian bowdlerization, probably propagated by the same people who say the "F" in "SNAFU" actually does mean "fouled". --Charlene 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - List is useful and much easier to read than the 'Different Meanings' article. (Also, "phocodontia" should be in List of English words that are not often used in the UK nor in the United States, however I'm not sure that there's much call for that list - it might be rather long! -- EdJogg 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, useful list, this is not really a dictionary list. This article needs to be cleaned up though. I don't see what's wrong with this list. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - dont see a reason to delete. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Useful, interesting, referenced somewhat. Edison 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and hope you can still get into your tutu. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- No way :-) `'mikkanarxi 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment to all keepers: There is nothing wrong with this list. Y'all people keep forgetting that there are many different places in wikimedia to store information. For example, images are preferrably stored in wikicommons, quotes are in wikiquote. There are also wikisource and wikibooks. For those who are young and don't know history, be it known that previously all this stuff was packed into wikipedia. Just the same, wiktionary is the palce for definitions of word usage (dicdefs). It has category, appendixes, WikiSaurus and perfectly valid storage of useful information. `'mikkanarxi 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. This is also an unmaintainable list with OR problems. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary Ozzykhan 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does Wiktionary have a way of keeping a list like this together, or of having the words in a category? A related list of items, or a list of words used differently in two dialects, is in no way a dictionary definition. I have never found useful info in Wiktionary because of the terseness and vagueness of the definitions. Putting each of these terms in a dictionary unlinked would defeat the purpose and make it impossible to find what terms differ between US and British usage. I suppose each term's definition could be mentioned in the related term's entry, but that would still lose the overall list. There is info in a list or category which is lost when the items are separated and scattered. Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Edison 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep (At the risk of repeating arguments advanced in the first AFD debate) Wikipedia is an international project with both American editors (like me!) and British editors (like, um, well, I know there are some somewhere). If someone from someplace else uses a term you don't understand or uses a term you do understand in a way that seems nonsensical it is nice to not have to go away from Wikipedia to find an explanation. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, why wern't List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, American and British English spelling differences, and American and British English pronunciation differences included in the nomination? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite totally. As it stands the article is BS but not Wiktionary material. Half the words are not generally British but dialectal, some belong in List of words having different meanings in British and American English and others are covered by American and British English spelling differences. Nuttah68 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's an interesting list, even useful. Just not appropriate for the Wikipedia, as it violates WP:NOT since it's mostly a 'jargon guide'/dicdef. We routinely delete lists of words in other languages, just because this happens to be english doesn't mean it should get special treatment. This sort of information could be somewhat useful, perhaps, in the article on the English language itself, but not in this form. --The Way 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. One of the most useful articles in Wikipedia. OK - potentially one of the ... (etc.) Snalwibma 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and as irrecoverable OR. Cynical 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There is an ongoing discussion here about a proposed merge and various other issues affecting this article. Matt 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep. It's a useful list, and while some of the entries might be dialectic, most are commonly known enough that probably 95% would be instantly understood by anyone in the UK, and quite possibly used, too. Never having been to Wiktionary, I don't know if that wikimedia project can cater for a list like this, but at the end of the day, what harm is it doing being here? Not sure I understand the OR accusations either - is knowing and recording the meanings of words OR? I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the words listed would be found in OED or Chambers. Would some sources/refs sort the OR objections? If you're really looking for lists of jargon to delete, go check out the internet slang list! Finally, as previously noted, the word "phocodontia" isn't in the list because it should go in the list "words that no-one uses at all, ever". Carre 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hula Popper

Neologism, possible WP:NFT fodder. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - random nonsense. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But keep a copy just for the term "seamen discharge". Lifeboats anyone? Bubba hot ep 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Great point! =) Seems like the author of the article has changed it though... Pity... –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may as well go then! ;) Bubba hot ep 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete oh my. Neologism. Lankiveil 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete per WP:NFT. Sounds more like something you'd find on the appetizer menu at T.G.I. Friday's than a sexual term. Wavy G 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want to order that item (let alone eat it) if it ever appeared on their menu now, would you? Bubba hot ep 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

~~After this? Oh, hell no.~~ Actually, fried peppers stuffed with pineapple and bacon? That sounds pretty good... Just, uhh, hold the white sauce, please. Wavy G 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:36, November 14, 2006

[edit] Darren hart

Doesn't appear to assert any sort of notability, but already contested as a CSD and PROD, so brought here. My recommendation is to delete due to lack of WP:RS indicating that the subject meets the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, AMG turns up nothing, google finds numerous unrelated hits (including an unrelated musician from Texas who also isn't notable enough to turn up on AMG), but nothing about an Aussie musician. Looks like the article was created to promote the youtube video (which I admit I didn't have the courage to check out). At a guess, may be notable at the high-school he attends, but not beyond that. Xtifr _tälk 12:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete who? Lankiveil 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete Unfortunately, even such a clearly bogus claim to notability prevents it from being speedied. Otherwise, I'd say speedy it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
DONT DELETE, he is notable for his skills such outlined in the article. The information is true and i have personnaly witnessed his musical talent outline in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.199.225 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 12 November 2006.

We need reliable sources for such claims. Your claim counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as spam. 24 unique Ghits for "Darren Hart" + Drummer, 97 unique Ghits for "Darren Hart" + Melbourne, nothing meaningful in the searches except for wiki article. Most of the cases being homonyms. Ohconfucius 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xlibris

Article is an advertisement for a non-notable small printing corporation - recommend delete per WP:SPAM. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep actually seems quite notable. The fact that is listed that Piers Anthony is going to republish one of his most famous series with them should help assert notability. I also retrieved this article from www.printondemand.com, a very common and highly used resource for those who do POD. A Google News Search turns up many stories where they are at least mentioned in passing, including mentions in the New York Daily News, The Sunday Times, a more exacting one in Mail Tribune to mention a few. Seems highly notable and popular in the POD arena. The article should be reworked slightly to be less advertisementy, but the company deserves an article.Ben W Bell talk 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - needs rewriting for NPOV but Xlibris are fairly well known in the print-on-demand community. Pete Fenelon 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, one of the best-known self-publishing companies. If, on the off chance, you're worried about this article conferring notability on who they publish, there's really nothing to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regenium-xy

Article about shampoos aren't encyclopedic. Do we need an article on this? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the related AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIVE PRO for Men as well. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that any technological advancement, including cosmetic ones, deserves an article. This is one in particular that got my attention because, like most men, I am interested in any product that can prevent hairloss. Not encyclopedic? Well how about this: as soon as I find the chemical makeup complete with diagrams and notation on Regenium-xy, I will add them to the article. Will that satisfy your encyclopedic-uncertainty? --CallamRodya 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaning to delete. I'm curious as to whether these might pass WP:CORP -- some products are notable, such as the Ford Focus or Commodore 64, but not all topics are inherently notable. Has this shampoo received any significant media or third-party attention? Luna Santin 07:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Read the article. 100 million American men who are terrified of loosing their hair are going to want to know about this shampoo. A new cancer treatment would surely get an article on wikipedia. why shouldn't a new hair loss treatment get the same attention? --CallamRodya 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Frankly, I will believe CallamRodya's claim to have no connection with L'Oreal when he has a few more edits to his credit on other subjects. Reads like pure spam to me. If kept, needs to be merged with VIVE PRO for Men. -- RHaworth 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per previous - when the first two articles look like spam and smell like spam, it's not a good start. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been a wikipedia browser for years and have only recently become a user as I feel certain areas of content are lacking. I believe wikipedia to be a one-stop source for any information. The fact this article is being disputed astounds me. This is 2006, and this is a community encylopedia. Sure, I could open up a 20+ year-old copy of Britannica and read all about hummingbirds and Einstein's theory of relativity, or I could log onto wikipedia and read all about...ANYTHING I WANT! the sky's the limit! don't ruin wikipedia by traditionalising it. --CallamRodya 08:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please see reply on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VIVE_PRO_for_Men. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete NN, spam --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Spamality. Danny Lilithborne 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I am in no away affiliated with L'Oreal and its brands. This article is not spam and was created for informative purposes only.--CallamRodya 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like spam, smells like spam, and tastes like spam, then guess what ...? --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request that Steve _(Slf67) no longer take part in this discussion unless he is willing to be constructive.
Delete. Looks like an add to me. Spinach Dip 09:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramide-R. utcursch | talk 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, now with extra body. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, spam containing obviously unreliable mystifications. If this gunk truly is patented, its formula is a matter of public record somewhere, so the article's claiming its contents are "mysterious" is patently false. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VIVE PRO for Men

Unencyclopedic material - do shampoos deserve their own Wikipedia article? Please also see related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regenium-xy. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia were to become a new battleground for brand placement, i would be against that. But this is not an example of that. I was surprised in fact, when i ran a search for this article and none existed. I believe wikipedia is place for interests to be explored, whatever the interest may be. Maybe shampoo isn't your thing, but you're not everybody. --CallamRodya 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not Encarta. If I can find articles on every video game system ever produced, each game that was produced for those systems, articles on virtually every cellphone manufactured in history, by manufacturer, etc, etc, then who are you to tell me that brands, whatever they may be, do not have a place on wikipedia? --CallamRodya 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. See the discussion of Regenium-xy above. -- RHaworth 07:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. When I first saw the article, I was convinced this should have been a db-g11 or a copyright infringement, it looks like direct marketing copy and I was trying to fing the original web source. I do believe the poster is not an agent, and created it in good faith, but he should understand that his statement This is wikipedia, ... I say anything goes is a very bad point of view to hold -- there are lots of rules and guidelines to abide by. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been a wikipedia browser for years and have only recently become a user as I feel certain areas of content are lacking. I believe wikipedia to be a one-stop source for any information. The fact this article is being disputed astounds me. This is 2006, and this is a community encylopedia. Sure, I could open up a 20+ year-old copy of Britannica and read all about hummingbirds and Einstein's theory of relativity, or I could log onto wikipedia and read all about...ANYTHING I WANT! the sky's the limit! don't ruin wikipedia by traditionalising it. --CallamRodya 08:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not everything can be put into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and not a "one-stop source for any information". Though I agree that Wikipedia is not a "traditional" encyclopedia, I still don't think individual shampoo brands should have their own Wikipedia article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree. Not every shampoo brand should have an article. But one that is technologically advanced and could contribute to the ease of social stigma surrounding a major male health concern, in my opinion, does deserve an article on wikipedia. Think about it: a shampoo that actually could prevent and even reverse hair loss in men! Rogaine has an article. Why shouldn't VIVE PRO for Men and Regenium-xy have articles too? --CallamRodya 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. This is nothing more than a very thick conditioner that coats the individual hairs, making them seem thicker. That's how ALL conditioners and conditioning shampoos work - this is no different than any other conditioner. Well, except the fact that they're marketing it to men, and the price. --Charlene 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Well of course you are more than welcome to amend the article to include that information. Afterall, wikipedia is a community encyclopedia.--CallamRodya 09:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I think it's better that this utterly non-notable conditioner, which probably comes off the same production line as 150 other conditioners that are identical except for fragranceand price, not have an article. Either that or start typing in hundreds and hundreds of articles on every conditioner sold in the world. --Charlene 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Apparently you don't read the ingredients list on the side of that container. Believe me, most haircare, and all beauty products for that matter, are worlds appart. You are far too cynical to make an informed oppinion.--CallamRodya 10:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete NN, spam --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete lovely spam wonderful spam Danny Lilithborne 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I am in no away affiliated with L'Oreal and its brands. This article is not spam and was created for informative purposes only.--CallamRodya 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think deletion is extreme. As a community, we should be discussing how these articles could be reworked to satisfy some users' calls for "legitimacy". I do feel these articles have a place on wikipedia and still do not see what all the fuss is about.--CallamRodya 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. For reasons mentioned above and in previous AfD nom. Spinach Dip 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramide-R. utcursch | talk 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The writer is making the same mistake that most self-promoting bands do: seeing the wiki as a place to raise awareness about something new. Wiki is about teaching about stuff that's already been accepted as amazing. --humblefool ® 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Lather, rinse, delete as spam. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, spam, non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, obvious spam, not encyclopedic style. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, spam. --- RockMFR 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Hardin

This smells suspiciously like pork. "Sifl-n-Olly Show" attracts 24 unique Ghits, no hits for Brian Hardin on MTV video search; plenty of names dropped in the article but from what I can find, it appears that he is a keyboards sessionman and also occasional producer and engineer. Article created by single purpose account. No vote yet. Ohconfucius 07:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sifl and Olly was a real, verifiable, notable, and hilarious show on MTV. Apparently this subject was involved with it [21] but that does not necessarily mean he deserves an article of his own. --Metropolitan90 08:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because it is not clear that he satisfies the appropriate WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 08:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Apperently he has a tiny career per [22], so he isn't notable, atleast yet. The article is also in such a bad shape that deleting it won't really destroy anything even if he was notable. Half the page is just non-sense, he worked with "gold record winning artists" like "His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama". - Tutmosis 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --MECU≈talk 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isabella V

disputed PROD for NN-internet 'celebrity' delete DesertSky85451 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Articles in Wired and elsewhere may fulfill WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge to some appropriate topic. It seems unlikely this article can ever be more than a stub of a sentence or two. Unless an appropriate topic can be found to house those sentences, they should be deleted. Valrith 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete "allegedly"? Too legal. Doesn't seem to be notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete', NN. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - relisting on JoshuaZ's request on my talkpage : it appears to me that her blog meets criterion 1 of WP:WEB "content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the site" In particular, the articles in Wired and Esquire seem to fulfill this condition.. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Basically per the comment I made on Mailer diablo's talk page which he nicely quoted here. JoshuaZ 07:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not even an internet fad. Resolute 00:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The Wired and Esquire articles are primarily about her and are great references that demonstrates notability (the German one seems to be primarily about her too, but I haven't read beyond seeing her name in every paragraph). --Oakshade 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn per nom. Eusebeus 12:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JoshuaZ, Wired magazine printed coverage passes the WP:BIO notability criteria. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Powerline Association

Article about a trade association almost certainly written by one of its members - user:Upaplc. Clear case of conflict of interest if not spam. (As an aside, I would like to know why there is a need for two organisations in this particular field - the UPA and the HomePlug Powerline Alliance.) -- RHaworth 07:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This page has been edited to eliminate advertising like content making it similar to MoCA, HomePlug, DSL Forum etc. This is a trade organisation with relevance to the telecommuncations industry, with members from at least 13 multinational enterprises. Google gives 27,900 hits. (There are two organisations which back two different technologies, like Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD - to remove one and leave the other would infringe NPOV. --Upaplc 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now, seems clean. Mango juice^talk 10:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral or merge with another powerline broadband article. Brief return from Wikbreak for this one -- see longer comments on AfD talk page. It all hinges on notability -- is this org. notable? Also, Upaplc has clear conflicts of interest and should not be editing this article or adding UPA links elsewhere per WP:COI (he/she's new and may not have known this).--A. B. 12:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I find this edit to be disappointing to say the least. --A. B. 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or merge into relevant article per above. --Howrealisreal 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable organisation. The fact that the article started its life with a COI isn't sufficient reason to nuke it, in my opinion. Lankiveil 01:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong Keep - these guys exist, are notable enough and the article is NPOV. Probably needs recategorising and linking to other articles on powerline networking. Pete Fenelon 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 23:07, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Startup Disc

It's a software update for the Wii. There's little more to say about it at this point. It is not confirmed by particularly reliable sources, and even then I'm not sure if it should be included as a separate article. Software updates and patches don't typically get their own articles, and this one being sold with the console seems to make it a better idea to simply include it in the Wii page. Not to mention saving user's clicks. Recommend Redirection to Wii, as some people may still look it up by name. It was already like this, but the change to a redirect was contested. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete "It is not yet known what the Startup Disc will actually do, only that it is included with the Wii console. Nintendo has yet to comment on the disc." So: the Wii Startup Disc is the startup disc for the Wii, and nothing more is known about it. And that's an article? Guy 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Wii. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk)
Merge. It's important, but not important enough for it's own article yet. Spinach Dip 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. Vote changed due to realization that the startup disk may not actually exist. Spinach Dip 08:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ Redirect per above. utcursch | talk 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you merge, out of interest? Most of the "article" is about Wii, the only sentence which is really about the disc itself is It is not yet known what the Startup Disc will actually do, only that it is included with the Wii console. Nintendo has yet to comment on the disc. Guy 12:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - there's nothing to merge but rumour and speculation. -- Whpq 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Content is already in the Wii article. --- RockMFR 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. First of all, this is only a stub amount of info. Second, it's entirely unverifiable rumor and speculation (seems like it should be Wii Sports). It has no place on WP, so no place on the Wii article. If it amounts to something useful, we can add it to the appropriate place, Wii. People may search for the Wii Startup Disk, and as such should be redirected to info regarding the content of the Wii box, on the Wii page. Scepia 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete According to Planet GameCube, the Wii no longer comes with a startup disc [23]. So I don't see a need for it to be mentioned anywhere now. TJ Spyke 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Take that article with a grain of salt. It has yet to be reported anywhere else. --- RockMFR 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- In the new IGN Weekly (IGN Weekly Holiday 06), they have the final Wii box and take everything in it out. There was no startup disc there (they also re-confirm that Wii Sports will just come in the same cheap cardboard that Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt came in). TJ Spyke 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or merge at the very least. The article contains not enough information to not be a part of the Wii page, most of which is speculation to begin with. --Zooba 12:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge — merge this bit into Wii, or delete if it's not relevant anymore. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - DXRAW 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Not enough info yet. —The Gr e at Llama ^talk 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's been proven by a gamespot On the Spot episode and on the Engadget unboxing that there is no Startup Disc, only Wii Sports. Toasty! | Available at your local store 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete - unverified speculation. Pete Fenelon 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge — Merge into main Wii Article, there's 6/7 days till it come out in America, they should be able to find out what it does by then. Cocopopz2005 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I can now find at least four sources which state that the disc does not exist. There's nothing to merge; it was merged at a point, but all mention has been removed from the article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong deleteDoesn't exist. Chopper Dave 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Austin

No real evidence of notability is given and it reads like a resume. (This is my first delete nomination, please advise me if I've not followed the right process, thank you.) Roaming27 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article is miscategorized in "Category:Women writers" as she seems to have no notable books under her name. But she seems to belong in "Category:Journalists" which covers "writers of articles in periodicals". Published articles in Newsweek and Time (magazine) seem to make her quite successful in her profession. User:Dimadick
Keep. She did win a US National Mental Health Association award for an article she wrote on mental illness. Is that enough of an award to qualify under WP:BIO? She also co-wrote at least two popular books on economics, one of which was reviewed in Forbes magazine (not online as far as I can find it). --Charlene 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Her books are not listed or even mentioned in the article. Maybe you could add them and thus justify her categorization as a writer? User:Dimadick
Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. A writer for several magazines and books are notable. She looks to be notable in her field. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Award winning writer for numerous national publications and commentator on National Public Radio, author of several books on negotiating strategies for women, and on religion and medical issues. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did some revisions to decrease the mention of religion. Edison 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but someone should look at the "heresy" paragraph. Lankiveil 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technomimicry

Protologism, word gets eight google hits. Also concerned about WP:OR. Weregerbil 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all of 1 hit on Google Scholar, hence nn or crufty OR. Leibniz 13:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. utcursch | talk 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zygii

~~Seems to be a peace of original research (if not a hoax) by anon: unsourced and unsubstantiated. Tried searching for "Strabo" + "Zygii" in google, google books, and yandex with zero results.~~ --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Deleting because of lack of Ghits is problematic because most of Strabo is not available online. It's also possible that whoever translated the parts that are online may have transliterated Zyx and Zygii differently, since Strabo wrote in Greek. I think it would be preferable if somebody who actually reads Greek could go over the primary source (Strabo) and see if there really is a Zyx and Zygii. If they were a race of people, they are inherently notable whether there are Ghits on them or not and whether they currently exist. I abstain only because the source is not online and Strabo is the only primary source (if he indeed mentions them). --Charlene 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Addition: I don't know if this is OR. If it is, it's a hoax. IF not, it's sourced (Strabo). Just because a source is a few thousand years old doesn't necessarily mean it's not reliable. --Charlene 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - You may use Perseus Lookup Tool to search all sorts of classical texts and dictionaries. The result is the same. I support Dmcdevit's proposal that each unsourced article should be deleted in the course of seven days. The stubs have been here for more than a year and no source has been provided to substantiate the claims. If such a source is provided, the article may always be started anew. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a well attested tribe. I'd suggest moving the entry to the most common name, Zygi or Zygoi (Googling does yield results). They were known to the medieval authors as the Zechi and to the neighboring Georgians as Jiki. This people are also supposed to have been ancestors of the later Abkhaz tribe, Sadzny, who lived south to Sochi and became Muhajirs during the Russian conquest of the North Caucasus. --Kober 10:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm ready to withdraw my nomination as soon as you provide reliable sources for these claims. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try to search for Zygi+Strabo in Google (95) and books.google 26. Also, Russian search engines: зиги Страбон - 115, зихи Страбон 107.--Kober 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Zygii. The nom reverted the AfD from the article themselves. --Wafulz 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zyx

Seems to be a peace of original research (if not a hoax) by anon: unsourced and unsubstantiated. Tried searching for "Strabo" and "Zyx" in google, google books, and yandex with zero results (not counting WP mirrors). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry hands

A behaviour programme applied in just a few schools in a single education authority borough and, as the article states, rejected by other boroughs, therefore does not seem to meet notability requirements, and more importantly, unlikely to be verifiable by third-party sources. I can only see this being notable if it gets adopted over a wide area and gets covered by newspapers, teaching journals, etc. Failed prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete no sources cited, no sources to be found, notability not established, they've stopped doing it, and it seems like a pretty lame idea anyways. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No sources. Only 1 google hit when searched with McKeown and that's not the same person. Bordering on original research. GringoInChile 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete that sounds amazingly dumb. Looks unverifiable, nothing on Google that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not safe for work

This page is about an internet neologism. See WP:NEO. The article offers no documentation in verifiable secondary sources and seems to be composed entirely of original research. I don't see room for improvement unless someone can find a treatment of the phrase in some outside source. nadav 08:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. For goodness sake, the article is over two years old. This is a case where the authors felt the term was so widespread that external refs were superfluous. nadav, is 8 million Google hits (with this article at the top!) not enough for you? -- RHaworth 09:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the phrase is definitely notable, but as the neologism page emphasizes, that is not enough. It MUST be discussed in secondary, verifiable sources. Google hits and popularity mean nothing here. I invite you to find outside documentation of the phrase. nadav 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Christopher Null. "No Longer Safe for Work: Blogs", Wired News, 2005-10-24. ? Uncle G 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Did you read this through? The body of the article does not mention the phrase once. The fact that a variant of the phrase appears in the title does not make this a secondary source about the phrase (see WP:NEO). nadav 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Transwiki to Wiktionary per below after I finally found a reliable source defining the phrase (Bergstein, Brian. "FeedRinse steps in nicely as an information-overload tool", Buffalo News (AP), 2006-07-03, pp. C3. ) nadav 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Speedy keep and rewrite to focus not on definitions of phrases but the question of workplace standards for content and what kind of content gets tagged as nsfw. nadav 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      - What makes you think that it has to mention a specific phrase? Wikipedia is not a dictionary with articles on words and phrases. It's an encyclopaedia, with articles on concepts, people, places, events, and things. I suggest that you ask yourself the question that I posed below: What is the concept that this encyclopaedia article is about? What is the concept that the aforementioned Wired News article is about? What is the concept that articles such as Richard Leader (2006-01-16). Not Safe for Work: The Reasonable Patriarch Standard (PDF). Adonis Mirror. are about? Indeed, what is the concept that the Buffalo News article that you read was about? Answer those, and you'll see the way to fix this article that doesn't involve deletion. Uncle G 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary (if possible). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no matter how popular a phrase is. --Charlene 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- And Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. It has no need of encyclopaedia articles that tell readers how NSFW content is adjudged by people, what it typically comprises, and what relative rating scale between various warnings exists. (The preceding sentence contains a hint, by the way.) Uncle G 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, absurdly widespread as both an acronym and a phrase. --humblefool® 10:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary of phrases. Encyclopaedia articles are about the people/concepts/places/events/things that the phrases denote. FAQ, mentioned below, is actually about the concept of frequently asked questions, notice. So the question to ask onesself is: What is the concept, denoted by the title, for this encyclopaedia article to be about? Uncle G 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary per Charlene. --Howrealisreal 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
ZOMGZ KEEP. Cf. FAQ, LOL, IANAL, etc. -- Plutor ^talk 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. DCEdwards1966 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. Very well-known neologism that should be on the list. --- RockMFR 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a very widely used phrase on the interweb. Lankiveil 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep, and article could be expanded a bit. Nadav, chill -- ruleslawyering is Not Cool. Haikupoet 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki, or ideally punt it off to the Jargon File where it belongs. Pete Fenelon 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge. —Nightst a llion (?) 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I also agree that this is a very widely used phrase on the interweb.Cman 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a very common phrase used on the internet. Yamaguchi先生 22:45, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A7) – Gurch 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Echo Band and Amro El Meligy

Egyptian Boy band and one of its members. Advert written by user:EchoBand. -- RHaworth 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete both as A7/Advert & both tagged as such. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ursa Major Awards

Let's face it, this award is never going to be televised on prime time TV. To compare it with the Hugo Awards is absurd. I see no evidence that this is of any importance at all, in fact, and the article certainly presents none such. Guy 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable fancruft awards. --Charlene 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem sufficiently noteworthy. Perhaps in the future. Shimeru 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to a furry wiki if it's not already there, otherwise Delete. Xtifr _tälk 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete with comment: According to Wikipedia policy, external wikis may not be used as sources. Transwiki-ing articles involves moving articles across Wikimiedia's wikis, not every wiki throughout the entire internet. Wikis with poor oversight are not as reliable as Wikipedia. Any articles which have been copied from WikiFur need to be deleted and\or re-written. Robocracy 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There's a difference between using an article as a reference and using it as a source of text. I copied it here because it was specifically requested by someone (not even a regular member of WikiFur - they just popped up one day) and because as far as I could see, everything in there could be confirmed as accurate from the website itself. I also got separate permission to use the image on Wikipedia, though technically as a logo I do not think it was not required. The article has had a good deal of editing from our administrators who are knowledgeable in the works it covers, and was even checked by a member of the awards committee. I'm not sure exactly how much more oversight it could have been given from any site. GreenReaper 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Using it as a source of text just means you're using it as a reference for the entire article. External wikis are not reliable for either article sources or for entire articles. Robocracy 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    - No, the reference for the entire article is the awards website. That's why it's there under "References". Whether this is sufficient for Wikipedia is the question. GreenReaper 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      - It's a primary source. It's still a valid source for raw information, but not a reliable source for more speculative information, such as the statement about it being the equivalent of the Hugo Awards. It would be sufficient to keep a pared-down version of the article, if the award could be shown to have some noteworthiness. WP:WEB or WP:BK would be the guidelines I'd look at first -- neither of them is perfect for this, but they give an idea. If any of the books that have received the award (or reviews of those books) make mention of the award, as they often do with the Hugo and other major literary awards, then I think that would be sufficient to keep and cleanup the article. Shimeru 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Unfortunately I don't have copies of most of the works to see (still assembling my anthropomorphic library). There is one that I know I have that probably mentions it, but it is written by the chairman of the committee. Apparently SFSite news covered its nomination list (and they mention the Hugos in a similar fashion further down to the left). It appears to have been noted (briefly) as an event on scifi.com. The wording in the article is somewhat ambiguous - it is not certainly not "equivalent" in general popularity to the Hugo awards, because furry fandom is smaller than sci-fi fandom and the award is far younger, but it is equivalent in style. Like the Hugo, both nominees and winners are chosen by the fans. Interesting reading: some responses to criticism (the criticism itself is unfortunately not available), including a response by the chair of the awards committee. GreenReaper 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Transwikification can be performed between any two wikis, Wikimedia Foundation or otherwise, as long as their copyright licences are mutually compatible. However, there are, deliberately, no maintained transwiki queues for any wikis other than Wikimedia Foundation wikis and a few GFDL gaming wikis. There is no formal system of third party volunteers who will transwiki to other wikis, although editors such as me and a few others will sometimes handle specific articles upon request. So if one wants an article transwikified to WikiFur, one must do all of the necessary work onesself, and one should be aware that by expressing that opinion at AFD one is implicitly volunteering to do all of that work onesself. Uncle G 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep That said this article needs improvement. But I don't think being an award for a minor niche is reason enough to delete the article, that's a reason to have the article. Few (in the United States anyway) needs to come to come to wikipedia to find out what the Emmy awards are (the history and trivia perhaps, but not the basic knowledge of what they are). By the same token few are going to know what the Ursa Major awards are if they hear about them. And they might well hear about them, the Fred Patton book mentioned in the article has been reprinted and is currently available in mainstream bookstores (Now titled Furry! The Best Anthropomorphic Fiction Ever!). --Lilfluff 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But you see, there aren't any third-party reliable sources covering this (unlike some other non-primetime TV awards, such as the Scotiabank Giller Prize, the National Book Award, and the Eisner Awards.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote low profile awards. ColourBurst 07:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete furcruft. Lankiveil 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete I hate furries.--Perceive 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - ideally, along with all the other furry spam. Pete Fenelon 01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep (but tone it down a little bit; I doubt it's quite at the Hugo's level of prestige) - I'm a bit stunned by all this vitriol. It's verifiable and fairly well organized as is, so its presence does absolutely no harm to anyone (except maybe psychically?); it also seems fairly well known in this community. Besides, it was awarded by a ConFurence that has its own article, with its own verifiable information, which no one has ever even proposed deleting! --zenohockey 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Being well known in a certain community isn't really enough, if it can't be verified through independent sources. Can you point to any media coverage or similar notice? If none exists, then the concern is valid. Shimeru 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furry Pirates

Yet another bit of furrycruft. Of the 131 unique Google hits outside Wikipedia, none appear to be reliable sources. Article is unsourced. No evidence of meeting relevant inclusion guidelines, no verifiable evidence of significance. Guy 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Doesn't appear to pass any of the WP:BK guidelines. Out of print, so unlikely to get any more notable. Percy Snoodle 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ben W Bell - meets WP:BK criterion 4. I'm not sure RPG.NET should count as non-trivial, but AFAICT it does. Percy Snoodle 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Strong Keep Roleplaying game published by a notable gaming company. A separate product line still listed on Atlas's web page alongside Ars Magica and Feng Shui (role-playing game). I suspect WP:BK is a poor guideline for RPGs; many of its criteria couldn't possibly apply. However, a gaming system published by a major gaming publisher seems noteworthy enough to me. Shimeru 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changed vote; Ben W. Bell has shown that this does in fact meet WP:BK criterion 5, while Starblind has produced evidence toward criterion 1. Article is now verifiable and can be cleaned up accordingly. Shimeru 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Addendum: I've added them to the article and done some cleanup. Shimeru 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Relatively well known role-playing game published by a very well known company in the field. Ben W Bell talk 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How well is "relatively" well? Also, no-one is proposing we delete Atlas Games. Percy Snoodle 15:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable game, notable publisher, notable artist (Terrie Smith) as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The company *may* be notable, but that does not necessarily mean the game is notable. No sources at all, no assertion of notability. --- RockMFR 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete furcruft. Lankiveil 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Comment: Okay people want references. Here is a review on RPG.net the largest and most notable RPG site on the web, and another. It was reviewed in Pyramid, one of gamings most prestigious publications. Ben W Bell talk 07:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete -- NN, and seemingly part of a systematic attempt to spam Wikipedia with furrycruft. Pete Fenelon 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn due to expansion - keep. Glen 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitsoe

Not entirely certain what this article is meant to be about; it's either supposed to be the biography of a non-noteworthy furniture designer or the non-noteworthy company he founded. Currently, it's a little of both, but it doesn't say much of worth about either. Not a speedy candidate, as it does assert noteworthiness; however, no reliable outside sources are provided, and my search finds nothing particularly compelling. Appears to fail WP:BIO and/or WP:CORP. Original author also appears to have a conflict of interest. Has been tagged cleanup practically since it was created in June, to no effect. Shimeru 07:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Significantly edited to be about a notable corporation since nomination. Un focused 17:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (And after two of the "Delete" opinions were expressed. Perhaps a relisting is in order?) Un focused 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the above. Denmark has a ton of furniture companies but I wouldn't consider many of them notable (I might be biased on this one, I work in a furniture store). Tvilum-Scanbirk might be notable since their products are found in countless Danish officies, but I can't really think of other good examples. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Highly notable. How many furniture companies do you know that have been making the same product, virtually unchanged, for over forty years? Then consider that this company doesn't make anything but the 606 Universal Shelving System. Dieter Rams's designs are world famous, and this is one of the most widely used of his designs. Unfocused 08:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason not to delete Dieter Rams, or perhaps even 606 Universal Shelving System (though I personally have my doubts about the latter), but neither or those is being considered. The ability of the designer has nothing to do with the noteworthiness of the manufacturing company or its founder, and that/those is/are what are being considered. Similarly, we have an article for Frank Lloyd Wright, but not for the guys who actually constructed the buildings. Shimeru 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Are you just trying to be right rather than improve Wikipedia, by suggesting that a product might have an article while the company that makes it and only it should not? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. You classify smaller things in the larger whole, not the other way around. Further, I ask again; how many other companies do you know that base their entire existence on making one single product line, virtually unchanged for over forty years? (Note this time I've even made it easier by broadening the question to not just furniture companies.) Unfocused 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Are you? As I said, I don't particularly buy the idea of the shelves having their own article -- I just think that your defense speaks more to them than to their manufacturer. To clarify, I am not convinced that the company or its product is noteworthy by association with a designer. As for single product lines, I don't see how producing fewer products makes a company more noteworthy. That's an interesting footnote. Is this company renowned for their shelving above and beyond its competitors' level of renown? Did this company or its sole product have some sort of greater historical impact? Maybe so, but I didn't find any evidence to that effect. It seems like an average company to me. If you can show it passes WP:CORP, though, by all means... Oh, and cheers for adding the bit about the shelving to the Rams article, saves me editing the nom to propose merging that part. Shimeru 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - The company's shelves are so renowned that they hold a place in the MOMA. Notability for the company that makes them is clear and obvious by their inclusion there. WP:CORP is only a guideline that we're supposed to be intelligent enough to ignore when appropriate. Un focused 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 09:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is tricky as the 606 Shelving System is notable: it's in the Museum of Modern Art, and most modular office shelving you find today is a poor copy. I believe it deserves an article more than the manufacturer, though (so stubify the redirect). --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The little Russian Matryoshka doll goes inside the big Russian Matryoshka doll, not the other way around. Un focused 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Glen 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Note article has been significantly expanded since the above AfD was filed. If you have expressed an opinion above it may pay to qualify that we are all talking about the same page. Thanks!

Comment Article has been almost completely rewritten in an admirable manner. I still feel it should be at 606 Shelving System, with the redirect pointed there and with some minor reformatting, because I believe the product is more noteworthy than the company. However, I would not object to keeping the pages and redirects as they currently are, if that is the consensus. I'm still not convinced the company is worth more than a footnote, but I don't believe the information about the shelving should be deleted. This isn't a withdrawal, since I wish to see others' input on the matter. Shimeru 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you nominated it correct? I'll close this as a keep and you just go ahead make the changes to it as you would any other :) Save a lot of time. Thanks Glen 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muns

Contested speedy prod, taking it here for debate. No opinion from me --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as pure rubbish, and what seems to have been made up in a single school day. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

sadly, it looks like these guys spent many, many school days to make this up, not just one day ... OfficeGirl 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:NFT-fodder joke article. I'm not exactly sure why this was moved straight to AFD after {{hangon}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Somebody's annoyed with his girlfriend (and maybe his own lack of a spine) and made up an article, apparently to blame women for his troubles. --Charlene 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - made up one day. MER-C 11:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and get over her already! NawlinWiki 13:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This was contested? Robovski 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. OfficeGirl 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete huh? Lankiveil 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong and speedy delete - not even funny. Pete Fenelon 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramide-R

Non-notable "molecular technology". Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regenium-xy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIVE PRO for Men. Delete. utcursch | talk 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Another marketing term for a conditioner L'Oreal created. Cosmetic chemists create new chemicals like this at least once a day, mainly because using a "new" chemical is a great marketing ploy. Just another nn conditioning ingredient. Conditionercruft? --Charlene 10:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If intel came out with a new technology that could revolutionize computing, would we not write an article about it? L'Oreal has developed a new technology that could revolutionize haircare and skin care. Should we exclude the article because it could come off as an advert? That's ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallamRodya (talk • contribs)
- It is not revolutionary. It is not a big deal. It's just another conditioning ingredient, one of thousands that do exactly - EXACTLY - the same thing as the stuff in the 98-cent-per-quart stuff you buy at WalMart. This is spam. --Charlene 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely delete. This thing is pure advert, and it is best for us to delete it. I mean, the article is even signed. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 10:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~Ceramide~~L'Oreal, perhaps with a single-line merge to state that Ceramide-R is a trademarked kind of this gunk. Rinse, repeat. Tonywalton | Talk 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On looking at the Ceramide article I think a redir there isn't the best thing. I like the use of this jollop for "acne scaring" (sic), by the way. "Boo! You've got spots", perhaps? Tonywalton | Talk 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete treet Danny Lilithborne 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
With new advanced deleting action!! NawlinWiki 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: The crappy science in modern beauty products and hair care items annoys the hell out of me, usually made up by marketing people with no knowledge of science whatsoever. At the end of the day it's nothing more than a sub-brand name. Ben W Bell talk 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - made up marketroiding - not real science. How many more of these are we going to get? --ArmadilloFromHell 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Shampoo is the new patent medicine, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to patent medicine maybe? I thought not. Robovski 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, delete per WP:SPAM. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete NN, spam, no independent refs --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
delete this looks like spam to me too Yuckfoo 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Presidential trivia

The page is solely a collection of trivia. See WP:TRIVIA. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete. It's interesting, but it's trivia. I'm wondering why there's a "citation needed" tag on the "All presidents have been white males" entry. They all look white and male to me... --Charlene 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There were unsubstantiated rumors of some African ancestry on the part Warren G. Harding.Edison 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information. --humblefool ® 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The collection of info is not indiscriminate because it all relates to and compares U.S. Presidents. Some insights can be found by having info about various presidents all in one place which would not be possible if the info were scattered to the individual articles. The birthdates, longevity, etc are really not trivial at all. Edison 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I hate trivia sections but it's most useful, encyclopedic info in there, it's not much trivial in the article, if kept it should be renamed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - useful information in here, and it's too long to be a trivia section in President of the United States. Newyorkbrad 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Good information. No reason to delete as far as I can see. --- RockMFR 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Humblefool. TJ Spyke 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It's historic, encyclopedaic content. Spinach Dip 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete There really don't need to be trivia articles. Wikipedia policy heavily discourages the use of trivia even within articles, let alone articles consisting entirely of trivia. Trivia is useful, according to policy, only within new articles where it provides information that should later be put into prose in the main body of the article with the end goal that the trivia section will be removed entirely once the article is well-developed. Furthermore, are we going to have trivia pages for on Indian Presidents? Phillipino presidents? Etc. I've a BA in Political Science and am working on a MA in a political field so I strongly encourage keeping articles that are political, but this crosses the line. We can merge the important tidbits into their appropriate articles, whether the article on the US presidency in general or the individual president's articles themselves, but this is just a random, and arbitrary, collection of information. --The Way 00:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This information is reasonably useful in that it would be included in the main article of the given president it is related to, and this is merely a presentation of what would be spread across some 40 articles into one succint page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bits of trivia related to multiple presidents should be merged into the article on the US Presidency in general, otherwise information regarding one particular president should be on that President's article. Information deemed to be 'trivial' doesn't need to be arbitrarily chosen from these articles and given their own article because someone seems to find these particular bits of information 'more interesting' or the like. --The Way 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Combining that article and this one might enlarge the article too much, as it is currently at 31 Kilobytes. I assume that was why this one was spun off. And ultimately, all information on Wikipedia is arbitrarily chosen by what Editors want. What's important or not is not clearly defined, but rather developed through a rough general consensus. Me, I don't see anything in this article I wouldn't have in the base article on the given president. This is a mere collation of that, in a different direction. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply believe that this article is superfluous and some of it isn't necessarily encyclopedic. And given Wikipedia's policy regarding trivia, I don't believe an article dedicated solely to trivia should exist (there is, in fact, a Wikiproject whose express goal is to remove trivia) --The Way 04:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While I suppose this article is redundant to the existing articles which should cover the information, but it presents them in a condensed format that is more readily accesible to the average user. So I can't agree it is entirely superfluous. And Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on trivia, it's at most a guideline, and at worst, a bad idea. Personally, I'd prefer a renaming of this article, but I'm at a loss for a better word. While there are some cases where trivial is so very minimal it's not important, there are times when it is not. And given that such luminaries as Isaac Asimov have published collected books of Trivia(and I saw several of the facts in this article in them), I'm not inclined to dismiss the idea of presenting various minor facts as important to Wikipedia, or unencyclopedic, because the information itself is still valid. I suppose I could support creating a WikiTrivia spin-off if it ever came up, but until that happens, I can't endorse deletion of otherwise valuable material. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's accurate, has it's varifiable sources, isn't to long an article. GoodDay 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Although there are good arguments for both sides, I'd prefer to see this article kept, as it combines information that would otherwise have to be found in lots of other articles. I'd like to see some more sources for the various statements, but that will probably be added in the future. Bjelleklang - talk 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - Not encyclopedic, most of this belongs on the lists it references, or in the Presidential articles itself, but it's verifable.

Comment If it's not encyclopedic and most of it belongs "on the lists it references, or in the Presidential articles itself" then it should be deleted. How can you vote for a 'weak keep' when your argument supports deletion? Verifiability is not, in and of itself, enough to garner a keep. --The Way 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep for reasons already stated. -- Scott e^iπ 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters, this is an exceptional trivia list. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 14 November 2006
Keep fundamentally some information does belong in an encyclopedia. don't throw out the baby with the bath water. 129.98.212.167 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abhishek Choudhary and related articles

A group of non-notable articles: Abhishek Choudhary, Abhishek choudhary (redirect page), Point Events Driven Learner, Pedler (redirect page), Romenagri(no release yet, vaporware). Delete. utcursch | talk 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I do believe that the subject is somewhat notable within his circle, and Google returned many relevant hits. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Google returns hits to his profile at mailing lists (sarai/others), Savannah, forums, groups (Yahoo/Google/others) , frappr etc. While I like people who contribute to or are interested in free software, there is no sign of notability here. There are only few newspaper links[24][25], which are about a cricketer. utcursch | talk 10:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all - not nearly enough notability to warrant all those articles, let alone one. Bubba hot ep 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. I saw nothing via a Google search which proved notability[26] , or any indication that this individual meets WP:BIO. Looks like self-promotion. --Elonka 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete-seems to be highly non notable. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Interestingly, I know the name - of the cricketer of course. Would not surprise me if he played in test matches already. Now THAT one may be notable, but this here looks like spam. Drop it - will only hinder when a cricket enthusiast wants to write an article. --Pan Gerwazy 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzball MUCK

A sourceforge project which gets nearly 100 hits some months according to the SouceForge stats [27]. No evidence of significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete and comment - If notable among furry community, consider using wikifur instead for the article =) Gekedo 11:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~MUD or~~ MUSH. This is not a MUCK, but a specific kind of MUCK server, akin to PennMUSH (which redirects to MUSH). Shimeru 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- After a further look at the articles, it seems clear to me that MUSH is the more appropriate choice. Shimeru 14:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I've gone ahead and merged a blurb to MUSH. Will redirect the article tomorrow unless someone objects to that course of action. Shimeru 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I object, wait until the community comes to a determination before you do so. --Pinkkeith 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to MUSH per Shimeru. Garrett^Talk 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain The nominator doesn't convince me that this isn't significant to support the nomination. Please provide me with more information why you feel that it isn't. --Pinkkeith 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Gekedo - this is nn and not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Fenelon (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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustafa Ali

Take your pick - hoax/incomprehensible gibberish/non notable even if it were all true ChrisTheDude 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- ~~bordering on an attack page towards the end.~~ A7 - non-notable Bubba hot ep 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- actually, hold fire on that. It appears the attack material was added after. I have removed it. ~~I am going to investigate a bit further as to notability. Football articles are notoriously difficult. Bubba hot ep 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~~ No, my original suggestion stands. Can't find any reference linking this name and the football clubs listed therein. Bubba hot ep 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Yeading FC's never heard of him, and I can't find any record of his two-goal-per-match season average at Pitshanger either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxiness. No relevant trace on Google of "Mustafa Ali" +any of yeading, Scarborough, Scarborough United and so on. Nothing on Yeading FC website, Hayes FC (though admittedly it doesn't seem to have a "previous players" section) or Scarborough Utd (which does). Also nothing relevant on Google about "Tiwana Liverpool" and nothing at all on "Irin Tiwana Liverpool". Tonywalton | Talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about his alleged four goals per game record at Bishopshalt School either, which even at schoolboy level would be fairly remarkable over 50 matches. Per its website Bishopshalt started as a "grammer" (sic) school, by the way. Oh dear. Tonywalton | Talk 11:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Rakuten06 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hoax, some kid making up glory for himself. NawlinWiki 13:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Incomprehensible nonsense. Spinach Dip 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, absolute drivel. Almost a speedy. Lankiveil 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Speedy Delete - this is drivel. Pete Fenelon 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg Kolesnikov

Reads like a resume, questionable notability. Contested prod. MER-C 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A published author with at least two works listed at Amazon. Seems to meet WP:BIO to me. I agree that the article definitely need to be tidied up, though. GringoInChile 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, WP:BIO calls for more than just being published but also multiple reviews. In a couple of minutes I was able to find these four: [28][29][30][31]. GringoInChile 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per comment above. Lankiveil 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Weak keep - on the borderline of NN. Pete Fenelon 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saibaba nagar

Group of buildings built in the Seventies in the Shell Colony village, with no assertion of notability. Either delete or merge with the village page. Nehwyn 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. I'm from Mumbai. The Shell Colony article wrongly mentioned that it is a town (now fixed). Saibaba Nagar is just a small area in Shell Colony that doesn't deserve an article. The content has been merged with Shell Colony. utcursch | talk 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, then! I hadn't proposed it for deletion because towns are automatically notable, but if Shell Colony too is a group of buildings and not a village, then it should be AfD'ed too, methinks. --Nehwyn 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Shell Colony is an area in Chembur, a suburb of Mumbai. I think it can be merged with Chembur. utcursch | talk 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mergeinto Shell Colony SkierRMH 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already merged. In my opinion, a redirect is not justified, because there are hundreds of small colonies named Saibaba nagar in India. I personally know of at least three in Mumbai alone. utcursch | talk 11:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable per utcursch. Ohconfucius 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete- I will defenitely change my vote to keep if any native(mumbaiwala) wikipedians genuinely argue to keep.But here Utcursch says non notable. He is from mumbai.SO I too support him. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finally Punk

Vanity page. Two speedy templates were placed on this page but removed by the creator. Band is not notable, the "sources" given here are youtube and myspace pages. Would go for speedy, but seems the templates were getting removed. Gekedo 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - now asserts notability however there are verifiability issues. MER-C 11:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure Pitchfork media is a notable source, not easy to get reviewed there, and sounds like they have both UK and US distro through reputable non-vanity orgs like Kill Rock Stars and Rough Trade. They have also toured. Does this satisfy WP:Music? --Amists 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep I was the one who tagged this for speedy, and I removed the tag after assertion of notability was added. I will admit that it's not a band or genre I know anything about. Per Amists, they do seem to be reviewed by people who cover this niche. Also, the main thing I see that puts them over the line for WP:MUSIC is a national tour, with an Australian band called Kiosk, and search for both band names together does confirm concert dates across the country. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like self-publicity. The aspiration to notability is not notability. WMMartin 17:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am in the band and this page was never made for vanity-sake i can assure you. We were just trying to share our music + like a lot of others, we're not taken seriously because we're women in punk music. Unfortunately, some just can't seem to come to grasps with this concept. I respect everyone's opinion + you are free to do to the page as you wish. If there is anything I myself can do to make the page more understanding, I'm open for any criticism. I strongly stand by keeping it up, and was hoping too keep this kind of as a memoire. Thank You. Bigjerk 3:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, self released CDLP a*nd a support tour do not meet WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, "are the après-riot grrrl racket of petulant girlscreams" - it sounds like PFM has actually written their article for them. Woeful writing, but probably barely notable enough. Lankiveil 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep Nuttah68 quoted "self released CDLP and a support tour do not meet WP:MUSIC." There are other means of notability due to the Wonk Records release of their 7", along with their tour being nationally successful Tobi Vail of Bikini Kill strongly encouraged concert-goers and has supported the band since the beginning. 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.173.193 (talk • contribs)

The page is inadvertently seeming more and more "vain" due to all the "notability" that is being asked/required of it. The author is having to add more and more sources, ultimately seeming like a self-righteous page. At this rate, the notability will then be insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.173.193 (talk • contribs)

Strong delete - NN, "described as the après-riot grrrl racket of petulant girlscreams" - by whom? One can only surmise, themselves...

01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

delete per WP:RS. Essentially a one or two-editor article on a myspace band, with self-released album. Main editor User:Bigjerk admits to being in the band, thus conflict of interest. The subject may have embarked on a nationwide tour, but even if true, it appears to have been called as third or fourth support bands in some cases in weblinks which are mainly blog entries. User:Bigjerk once again removed AfD tag yesterday during the current debate. Ohconfucius 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete Fenelon, attention to the mattter, you'd notice that pitchfork media described them as the "apres-riot grrrl..." on the column they wrote.
Delete per WP:Band. One review in even a moderately popular internet publication does not establish notability, to my mind. On top of that, a band member above said: "I am in the band. . . We were just trying to share our music. . . I strongly stand by keeping it up, and was hoping too keep this kind of as a memoire." The problem is that WP, unlike Myspace or Youtube, is not a place to share music or to build a memoir. It's an encyclopedia.--TheOtherBob 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with having the page removed. It's an obvious strive, trying to keep it up. Hopefully sometime down the road someone will make one when there's more notability to show. Thanks. Bigjerk 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furtopia.org

As acknowledged by User:GreenReaper (a knowledgeable editopr when it comes to things furry, it seems), this article is unreferenced, apparently fails WP:WEB, and no reliable secondary sources appear to exist. The commenton the article's Talk page that "this should probably stay at WikiFur" seems to me to be fair. Guy 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 11:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with MER-C GringoInChile 13:00, 10

November 2006 (UTC)

Delete fancruft 69.160.28.78 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete notable within the furry community, but unlikely to have the sort of reliable sources on which an article can be based. I'd consider this along the same lines as the similar AfDs for YERF and FurAffinity awhile back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. It's mostly useless fan suff. Spinach Dip 21:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete furcruft. Lankiveil 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
- That sounds gross. Miltopia 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds gross. Miltopia 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Alexa ranking: 98,036 (though almost half of all furries seem to use Firefox ;-). Forum is ~50% of site bandwidth, 372668 posts, a shade under 3,000 users (registered, not active). GreenReaper 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ - leaning towards keep actually, but with all deletes so far I'm questioning my judgement. Miltopia 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changing to abstain since it's funnier than neutral and since I don't really know enough about the site to even be neutral (and I don't want to just delete my comment so whatever) Miltopia 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I've heard of this, but I've seen no mention outside of fursites (if that's even a word). Garrett^Talk 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - more furrcruft. Pete Fenelon 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete both. --Daniel Olsen 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Thomas Lee

Also nominated: Margaret A. Merritt

Tagged as a speedy candidate for A7 (no assertion of notability), but being the grandfather of Jacquline Kennedy Onassis is arguably an assertion of notability. My interpretation of A7 is stricter than this, it was mostly meant to target vanity articles on friends, relatives or oneself, and this article seems to be neither. With that said, I think that the notability of a relative two steps away from the first lady is dubious since Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Submitting to AFD to review this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is redirecting Articles for deletion/Margaret A. Merritt to this section really the Right Thing? AlexTiefling 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, the same arguments would probably apply. In both cases the chief assertion of notability is being a grandparent to a US First Lady. Shared nominations for similar articles where the outcome will almost certainly apply to both articles are fairly common. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom, no notability apart from being a relative. Currently listed for speedy deletion are John Vernou Bouvier II, another grandparent, and William Sergeant Bouvier, an uncle, who offer no notability apart from the relationship. Nuttah68 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete for both. Definitely doesnt meet A7. GringoInChile 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. An completely non-notable. Spinach Dip 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both per nom as not notable. Notability is not inherited, nor does it pass up the chain to one's parents and grandparents. Both articles are essentially identical, and are at bes merger candidates. Ohconfucius 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan Liberal Party

Created by User:Abdelaati (Adil Abdel Aati), whom the article claims to be most known figure. I couldn't find[32] any reference of this party being a notable political party. Was added[33] to the list of List of political parties in Sudan by the author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Abdel Aati. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - conflict of interest. MER-C 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:COI, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adil Abdel Aati

Created by User:Abdelaati (WP:AUTO). I couldn't find[34] any references that establish notability. Delete as non-notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan Liberal Party.utcursch | talk 08:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Judging from the username of the author, it probably is a vanity. GringoInChile 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - conflict of interest. MER-C 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:COI, definitely does not meet WP:BIO criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Naconkantari 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles in Tynan

Article is a stub which only contains information on an incident amply covered in Norman Stronge and James Stronge. No reason for it to exist. --SandyDancer 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, although I do think it is, perhaps, part of a series some chap is undertaking, including lots of towns in Ulster.--Couter-revolutionary 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This is part of a series of articles that have been building up over the last year to document incidents that have taken place as a result of The Troubles in Northern Ireland in a consistent, neutral and thought out manner. Ben W Bell talk 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is misleadingly written and is going to be a stub forever though. I have taken a look and see that indeed scores of similar articles have been created, none of them offering much and none of them written in an encylopedic style. The intro wording in each suggests that the article is about a book or something (read it and you will see). They all need to be cleaned-up dramatically or deleted. --SandyDancer 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree I can see where you got the idea it was a book from the first line, however it's also written correctly as if it was a book it would say (and if all Wikipedia articles were written correctly the world would be a happy place, but alas). The first sentence could probably be reworded to avoid that confusion, but it does recount useful information about a very notable period of Northern Ireland's history. Saying all these articles need deleted, I'm not sure I'm with your reasoning as to why they do? They're factually correct, definitely notable and the articles are presented in a useful form rather than being spread all over Wikipedia in different types of articles. Also what is wrong with stubs? There seems to be some kind of mistaken belief on Wikipedia that stubs should not exist. There is nothing wrong with short articles, not everything has to be an essay. Ben W Bell talk 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So let me make myself clearer: this article doesn't impart information that is not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia already, and it never will. Therefore it is pointless. --SandyDancer 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep: For god's sake not again - this is the third time I have had to defend these articles, because people don't bother to do any research. See Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board (Violence articles and death statistics in towns) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in Moneymore. All arguments have been fully rehearsed previously and the arguments in the last link are very pertinent. These are stub articles - help to develop them, not kill them off. The comment on the Stronge article and Tynan shows the deficiency in real thinking - there are plenty of other Tynan incidents to add - but reasearch needs to be finalised and added in due course. Give us a chance to develop these articles. Ardfern 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to be so strident in your reponse. There are good reasons why you are being called to defend this article. And I didn't know they'd been nominated before - there is nothing on the talk page saying they have. Perhaps if they were cleaned-up and written in an encylopedic style it might help? Take the opening gambit: "The Troubles in Tynan recounts incidents during, and the effects of, The Troubles in Tynan, County Armagh, Northern Ireland." Does the article on World War II begin "World War II recountsa conflict, and the causes and effects of that conflict, fought between 1939-1945"?

However clean-up isn't really what is needed - these articles shouldn't have been started in the first place. Wikipedia is not a memorial. These articles are going to remain stubs and you should have thought before starting them all. --SandyDancer 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not sure you even understand the word strident, if you think thats what my response was. If you can improve the articles then do it, if they need cleaned up then, make a suggestion? Don't just make destructive criticism, without offering something positive. Your "memorial" comments are deeply offensive to people like me who lived through the Troubles and perhaps its you who needs to do some serious thinking before you comment further. These articles (when completed) will be the story of a 30 year war in each town in Northern Ireland. They will be notable, valuable and encyclopedic in due course, but only when given a chance. They will not remain stubs and a lot of thought and research went into starting them. To suggest there was no thinking behind starting off 97 articles is nothing more than another insult. I'm not the one not thinking. Ardfern 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting a wikipedia guideline - which I believe was set up in response to a lot of pages created in response to the 9-11 attacks in the US. The same logic applies here. No need to take offence - but Wikipedia is not the place to set up a directory of any and all incidents of sectarian violence which occurred in N. Ireland. Its an encyclopedia - not just a random collection of information. You have adopted a combative approach to this from the beginning and you seem to see this as a personal attack. For the record, it isn't. --SandyDancer 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment Combative moi - imagine that. You have researched and written a large number of related articles as part of a major work on the Troubles (not a random collection of information!!) and someone (who knows nothing of the subject or the work, or even tries to find out) proposes to delete the work. Why would you be combative? Are you for real? Ardfern 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not flatter yourself. What you have created is only major in the sense that it consists of lots of articles, written in a bizarre style, low on content, and inappropriate (in their current form) for an encyclopedia. If you want to set up a directory of incidents that occurred during the Troubles, set up a website and do so there - but only notable people, things and events should have articles on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I can see the value of these articles as part of a series, but please rewrite the intro paragraphs. "The Troubles in Tynan recounts..." etc. These are encyclopaedia articles, not book reviews, which is how they currently read. -- Necrothesp 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep A significant part of Northern Irish history, and a very useful series. Apart from introductions, which can be easily changed, the articles are well written and concise. Size shouldn't be an issue. « Keith » 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The strategy of short specific articles is uncommon, but is also used for much less notable topics such as railway stations and census districts. As with those, it helps the main placename articles like Tynan have a more uniform worldwide style. Perhaps a bot request could be made to drop onto each article talk page a template that links to the rationale behind the series ? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps the contributors to this series could suspend substantive additions for a while in order to arrive at a good common format, with series boxes, templates, etc to emphasise that the articles are all in a series. When this work is done, it is less likely they will be annoyed by further RFDs. jnestorius^(talk) 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as suspending substantive additions on a wiki. Meanwhile, as my small bit to help, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland/Troubles to explain any new templates the community might decide on. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an enforceable official moratorium; I'm simply offering some (disregardable) advice to those interested as to a possible way to (voluntarily) organise their work in a manner which might attract less negative feedback. I think your subproject page will prove useful. jnestorius^(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

項目名

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adil Zamani

Created by User:Adil Zamani (WP:AUTO). Fails WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. MER-C 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. I had considered prodding this article. MNewnham 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not meeting WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC. Alternatively, as it was moved from User:Adil Zamani, and could arguably be moved back there. Ohconfucius 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. or move back to the userspace. --MECU≈talk 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar

Duplicative of exising articles Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar. NawlinWiki 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as POV and factually incorrect. The Spaniards were conquerors too; they were not the original inhabitants. Ask the Celts, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Visigoths, and the Moors, who were all there before the modern Spanish. If it is kept, the word "originary" should be changed to "original". --Charlene 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlene: Modern Spaniards are the product of the mixing of all these people you have just mentioned. Your comment is akin to saying that the modern British people are not really British because the Celts, Angles and Saxons were there before them. (i.e. a nonsensical argument).--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This article is racist nonsense. It purports to claim that the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar were 'Original' and 'Gibraltarian' neither is true; This myth supports the irredentist Spanish claim. The history of Gibraltar is one of successive occupations, the Spanish one being in the middle. The Spanish inhabitants had a choice of remaining or leaving, and freely chose to escape future conflict. The term 'Gibraltarian' did not exist at the time so cannot be applied to them. Today it has a precise legal meaning. The article remains unnecessary this is covered extensivly in the Gibraltrar and San Roque pages where it has been subject to extensive editing to achieve a more honest consensus. --Gibnews 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is racist about this article. I dont understand that allegation which you use quite often. It is true that the history of Spain is one of successive occupations. It was occupied by the Carthaginians, Romans, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Moors, the French and the Brits... That has little to do with the fact that the people who were born in Gibraltar are Gibraltarian.--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Heavily POV on the spanish side of the continuing Gibraltar dispute. Such an article I would expect to have a longer history than the 16th century. Surely someone else lived there before then - the Med has been occupied for millenia. Robovski 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the history of Gibraltar. It is about a population group, akin to Korean-Americans or Palestinians. There is no need to give a history of the territory, which is no different from that of any surrounding town.--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time of review, the lead line was "The original inhabitants of Gibraltar..." which was patently false (ever heard of Phoenecians?), and set a history of Gibraltar. Robovski 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete poorly-spelled Spanish POV. Lankiveil 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep, but modify. I have already changed the name which I admit was POV. The Gibraltarian identity and heritage of these Spaniards is a reality and is not covered at all in other Gibraltar related articles, so the allegation that the material is duplicated is false. This article makes no controversial statement. It simply mentions the existence of a collective of people in history and at present. --Burgas00 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article is now NPOV is false, as demonstrated by this quote: "The Spanish Gibraltarians or original inhabitants of Gibraltar, as opposed to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar, were those who left (voluntarily or forcibly) the town of Gibraltar during the British conquest of this town from Spain. 4000 Gibraltarians left the town in 1704 - the vast majority of Gibraltar's population at that time." Also, it is customary to state that you are the original author of the article in these discussions. Robovski 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But what is POV about that paragraph and how can it be modified to make it NPOV? Do you agree with the title change?--Burgas00 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00 : It would be nice if your contributions to this topic were in one place rather than splattered all over everyone elses. That the article is racist nonsense seems evident to everyone else. It would also have been polite to have left the article alone whilst its being discussed. --Gibnews 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The history of this is all adequately covered in the main article on Gibraltar, which already makes perfectly clear both the number of Spanish inhabitants who decided not to remain under British occupation and the circumstances of the war which led to Gibraltar being ceded in perpetuity to Britain. What that leaves for this article is merely a group of present-day Spaniards who claim descent from those four thousand, and have formed a little club for themselves. Unless they have had significant media exposure -- and the references provided so far make no such claim -- they do not belong in Wikipedia, per policy and long-standing precedent. — Haeleth Talk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion was added after closure. Please do not edit AfD pages after the discussion is closed. Discussion is continued at Wikipedia:Deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep This article is NPOV and informative.--Burgas00 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote Seriously, have you read the AfD guidelines? And again, I point out that you are the original author and the person who renamed it after the nomination to AfD. You've also tried to convince the closing admin that this was a different article to the one under discussion. This is a POV fork and doesn't add any notable information that isn't already in the main Gibraltar article. Delete Robovski 22:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the article has been deleted by mistake... I have restored a previous version of it. Can someone please add the references which have been lost?--Burgas00 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote on the article based on its content rather than its name, the majority felt it should be deleted, so it was. Time for you to move on. --Gibnews 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews both the name and the content are completely different. Have a look at the article in good faith, even though i know u disagree with the new article also.--Burgas00 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is closed. Your article is to be deleted. You added this "subsection" to the AfD entry for your article, and you are trying to represent this as a vote, which it is not. AfD is a discussion about the article, not a vote, whether the article should be retained, and if so what need to be done. You have renamed the article but it is still a POV fork and doesn't contain any noteworthy information that isn't already in the Gibraltar article. Robovski 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athol Deakin

Local Councillor in England, whose only claim to notability seems to be that he was suspended for threatened assault of another councillor and was later convicted for common assault of a neighbour. I lodge the AFD to query the notability, but make no recommendation either way. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Meets the WP:BIO criteria "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." The threatened assault took place during a meeting of councillors and was heavily covered by numerous news sources. This person's political notability in the Bromsgrove district is second only to fromer front bencher Julie Kirkbride. Also, to a lesser extent, the article may meet WP:BIO "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Yeanold Viskersenn 14:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Question Point taken about the news coverage, but is an ordinary backbench councillor really a "major local political figure"? I'm inclined to think not, because nothing in the linked articles suggests that he is an executive member, former mayor or anything. Rightly or wrongly, most local councillors seem to be rather obscure and minor figures. Also note that Yeanold Viskersenn is the creator of the article --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to the question, what kind of local councillor? I'm a Communuity Councilor for my locality - as are 9 other people. We all serve elected unpaid positions as members of the community council which is seperate and under the local council, which is what is commonly referred to as 'local government'. People like me are pretty much nobody, people on the local council generally are non-notable as well unless they find their way into some kind of scandal. Robovski 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Per BrownHairedGirl, A backbench councillor is clearly not a 'major local political figure' and contrary to assertions, there appears to be no press coverage of the person. Googling '"Athol Deakin" bromsgrove assault' returns only 1 relevant ghit indicating his most recent sentencing (7 nov 2006) has received no press coverage besides that of the local rag. MNewnham 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough due to the combination of his position, and the media coverage. Lankiveil 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete per nom, this isn't Wikinews and the reporting is trivial. Completely misses WP:BIO: not a "major local political figure" and not "notoriety" and not "newsworthy". Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Coverage evidenced to date is not significant press coverage, which is explained in the footnote as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." One article in the local paper about the assault doesn't even come close to this standard. The other source is not even from the press. Article subject appears to not meet WP:BIO. GRBerry 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Local authority councillors in the UK are not notable in and of themselves. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per Fys. Not major politicians, not member of legislature. Ohconfucius 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Mr Deakin appeared in several regional newspapers and is a major politican for the Sidemoor region, as well as a former major candidate for the Stoke Prior region. He is also very representative of problems related to the debates on the composition and membership of local councils, and of individuals in politics, and this page serves as an excellent source for all that wish to read up on such matter. Joey Smith 14:01, 14 November 2006
- Note: the above vote was actually J0ey sm1th2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and was that user's only edit. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Callaghan

This article is about a failed congressional candidate in the 2006 elections. None of his other accomplishments seem to pass WP:BIO and there seems to be consensus that being a major party nom does not inherently impart worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unelected political candidate. Lankiveil 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete: The substantive content of the article as well as the only link to it are based on Callaghan's 2006 candidacy, which seems to have passed unnotably. -- Shunpiker 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep: admittedly, the article needs beefing up, but: (a) nine years Assistant U.S. Attorney; (b) Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection; (b) Chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party; (c) 2004 West Virginia Democrat of the Year -- c'mon, guys, this is not a nobody. Just because he lost a congressional race doesn't mean he's not notable. He got 43%, fwiw (the closest margin of any statewide WV race this year) -- Sholom 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If the final decision is to not keep the article, I highly recommend a redirect to West Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, as was just done in a similar case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samm Simpson. A redirect preserves the page history (and older versions of the article), which would be valuable should (for example) this person again be a candidate in 2008, which would clearly (in my opinion) justify a separate article again. John Broughton | Talk 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sholom. Head of state department, 9 years as U.S. attorney, chairman of state party. Edison 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted by Kylu. MER-C 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mancation

NN Neologism. See history for version before my rewrite JBKramer 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as neologism. --InShaneee 16:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary and per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Picaroon9288 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt: This article has been deleted and recreated 3 times already [35], most recently, yesterday. The latest version was created by User:Mancation. DCEdwards1966 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A completely pointless 20-word article. Spinach Dip 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism; and protect so as to prevent recreation. Lankiveil 01:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as spam (CSD G11). cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Randall Travel

I had deleted this article via WP:PROD as an uncontested deletion. The author since contacted me stating that they object to the deletion, so I have undeleted the article and brought it to AfD. The subject of the article fails WP:CORP and, even if it didn't, the tone of the article is borderline advert language. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:CORP criteria, advertisement. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Blatant ad for a non-notable company. yandman 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per yandman MNewnham 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak and reluctant keep but de-POV mercilessly. "Travel Company of the Year 2005-2006" seems to assert some sort of notability, assuming this is some recognised national award and not "Travel Company Based In London W4 Whose Name Starts With 'Ma' Of The Year". Author needs to source that statement. Tonywalton | Talk 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an award from the AITO (association of independent tour operators), a pay-to-join club of tour operators, one of them being...you guessed it. Not a hugely notable award, IMHO. yandman 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't seem to be in any way notable. Lankiveil 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Strong delete - advertising, pure and simple "Leading"? By what criteria? Pete Fenelon 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete for now, almost every paragraph of the article smelling very strongly of pork. Can be speedied per WP:SPEEDY#G11. Allow it to return if it comes back in an encyclopaedic form. Ohconfucius 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patomic

Contested prod. Non-notable 16-year-old rapper. 410 unique G hits, many of them having nothing to do with a rapper. ""Patomic" rapper" got 6 hits. His real name, Patrick Arthur Ballester, yields zero non-wiki G hits. No evidence of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nowhere near meeting criteria in WP:MUSIC, and by and large unverifiable. --Wafulz 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe even speedy? No evidence of notability whatsoever. yandman 14:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Wolfe

The subject of the article is a failed congressional candiadte in the 2006 elections. His only other claim to notability is being the sherrif of Cabell County, West Virginia. By all accounts he is a good sherrif, but neither being a sherrif in an American county the size of Cabell County nor being a failed party nom to the US House of Representives causes a given subject to meet WP:BIO. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Cabell County is Huntington, West Virginia, one of the larger cities in the state. Notable as sheriff regardless of loss in Cong. race. NawlinWiki 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'd say the bar on a sheriff should be set much higher than a county that has a largest city that is just below 50,000. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - failed political candidate. Being sheriff isn't notable. -- Whpq 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: He was elected Cabell County sheriff in 2000, and was re-elected in 2004, per this Associated Press profile. The population of Cabell County, West Virginia is 288,000. John Broughton | Talk 01:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Sheriff of a small county isn't enough for notability. Probably no sheriff is inherently notable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete almost all local policiticians - crz crztalk 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- he's not only sheriff of the county, but President of the West Virginia Sheriffs' Association. -- Sholom 14:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that coverage of congressional challengers here is already EXPECTED by the world outside AfD. Un focused 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Redirect to University of Massachusetts Amherst (per snowball, I can delete if someone insists that the edit history cannot be preserved). ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registered Student Organizations at UMass Amherst

Unencyclopedic list. Any notable organizations can be discussed in the university's article or a separate article. --Slowking Man 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This ends up being little more than an advert for the university in question. yandman 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain. I created this page because the main article for UMass Amherst was too long. There has to be a better solution that merging the full list of RSOs back into the main article or deleting this page.Vvuppala 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This doesn't mean the article in question meets Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. See WP:NOT. This is a perfect example of something that may not fit on Wikipedia but which is quite welcome on UMassWiki and in fact already exists there. --Neurophyre^(talk) 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Neurophyre, as long as the information is available, I'm happy. I thought it didn't belong in the main article, and I am generally hesitant to delete information, which is why I created a separate page for the information. I've changed my vote to abstain. Vvuppala 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted I'll link to the external list in the main article. And again I'd encourage you (or anyone reading this) to contribute at UMassWiki. There's a ton of information about UMass and the surrounding areas which doesn't pass Wikipedia's standards but which is relevant on UMassWiki, and I'd sure love more editors there! :) --Neurophyre^(talk) 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete doesn't seem encyclopedic Hut 8.5 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain. --Neurophyre^(talk) 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's plenty of precedence to delete list of student organisation within any given university (for example York University student societoes) per wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and also per WP:ORG. AT best, this is a redirect to University of Massachusetts Amherst. Ohconfucius 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge (incl. Creighton's NCAA College World Series appearance (1991)) ~ trialsanderrors 02:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCAA College World Series appearance (1991)

This article seems to be about one team's participation in an american university baseball championship 15 years ago. The title is slightly misleading, and in my opinion the article is of no use here. yandman 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See discussion with author here. yandman 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User in question has now written Creighton's NCAA College World Series appearance (1991) which, while having a less misleading title, still needs deleting on notability grounds. Should I start a new AfD? yandman 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment In this case, yes, simply because the issues in this AfD haven't been made clear. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Creighton Bluejays. DCEdwards1966 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge both articles per DCEdwards1966. (delete these afterwards) --MECU≈talk 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lea

non-notable Manchester United player, hasn't played for the club, or even appeared as a substitute. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Flanagan Dangherous 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, junior team player only. NawlinWiki 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DrJekyll

Notable only in the "seduction community". Fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: fails WP:BIO; only mentioned in dedicated internet site(s); not notable in general media. -- MightyWarrior 16:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. NN. Leibniz 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simmetrics

non notable software Z388 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Kavadi carrier 04:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. -- Whpq 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn software, delete per nom. Lankiveil 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete Normally I wouldn't pile on, but as this is a relist I'll say that the page needs to explain notability, read less like an advert, and it needs copyedit for style if it's kept. --ais523 14:58, 13 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seward Peninsula Thrash Metal

Prod contested at Seward Metal by creator. This is a very tiny, unverifiable and non-notable thrash metal scene and the article is original research as described on Talk:Seward Peninsula Thrash Metal. 0 Google hits for "Seward Peninsula Thrash Metal", 57 for "Seward Metal", however only 1 seems to be related. Prolog 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the comments by the creator at the talk page pretty much assert the lack of WP:RS indicating that this genre actually exists and is of note. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: not notable outside v limited area -- MightyWarrior 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per WP:NOR. yandman 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research -- Whpq 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I can't imagine anyone would actually go looking for this, and even if they were (it sounds like one of those situations where the band members might outnumber the fans) it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 06:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I do not know much about thrash metal, but I think that the page shows the range and diversity of the genre. It acually sparked my interest into reading more about the Seward Peninsula Region and to read about thrash metal more. Due to global warming, the towns in the Seward Peninsula are being eroded away by the changes in the ocean and storms. By maintaining this page, a form of expression by the local people about this danger can be kept. If they came up with a better name than Seward Peninsula Thrash Metal and maybe posted some site links, that could help it out. --Christgg 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There is nothing that can be found about this subject. Band members' own postings wouldn't be considered reliable sources. "Better name" would still be a protologism used by a small group of people. Prolog 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-paradigm

See also Meta-paradigmal theory (AfD discussion).

Confusing due to lack of context. The sources, such as they are, do not convince me that this is an important or even well-defined concept. Leibniz 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Given that in the extended sense popularized by Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm is an overarching pattern of thought that pervades a science, claims about meta-paradigms strike me as so abstract to be altogether meaningless. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Related nomination: Cognitive panorama. It all seems to come from the personal web page of this Benking guy. There is a link to an "encyclopedia", but that is some sort of wiki, not a WP:RS. Leibniz 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this too as complete bollocks: . . . a conceptual superstructure that defines and identifies topics as logical places, displays relations and connections within these topics or issues. It is a combination of three extensional Spaces = the physical space, a context space, also called "rubics cube of ecology," and a terminological space or "switching space" for various levels for different languages. Or, as Aristophanes makes Socrates say in The Clouds:

I’d never come up with a single thing
about celestial phenomena,
if I did not suspend my mind up high,
to mix my subtle thoughts with what’s like them—
the air. . . .

Smerdis of Tlön 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It also says:

open-ended universality,
loss of meaning,
loss of context

which seems oddly topical for this little nest of pages. Leibniz 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete pseudopostmodernist nonsense. Lankiveil 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete -- whether the concept of a paradigm is even a valid one is a debate in and of itself. We're talking about something that is basically the fourth derivative of science. Haikupoet 06:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both per Aristophanes (and Smerdis of Tlön). Good for buzzword bingo though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Redirects are cheap, you can try WP:RFD though I guess. W.marsh 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbuthnot, prominent members of the family

Purposeless page

Speedy delete. Uncontroversial. - Kittybrewster 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, a redirect that goes to a related page which is useful. I can't see many people looking for this particular heading, but I don't see how it's hurting, either. Lankiveil 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

Quite. /historical accident. Bin it. - Kittybrewster 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong venue, WP:RFD is the place for discussing redirects. For what it's worth, I'd !vote to delete the target of this redirect, especially since there is a Category:Arbuthnot family. WP:NOT rootsweb. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engim

per WP:SPAM. Vanity article created by Alex Bugeja about his defunct corporation. Related article on Bugeja has been tagged with sppedy per A7 and G12. Scores 31 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not sure it really qualifies as spam, but it's a defunct corporation and the article itself says "although not commercially successful", they developed a somewhat advanced technology. Unfortunately, in the broad scheme of things, their invention was an incremental improvement over existing technology, and that, combined with a lack of commercial success, spells "non-notable". Fails WP:CORP and has WP:COI issues; it must go. --Xtifr _tälk 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faith (model)

Delete: What purpose does this serve? it's just a pointless pornographic plug Frequency24 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - While her breast size is impressive, there is no assertion of notability in the article. If it had been around for longer than a week, I'd tag it for speedy. However, in light of its youth, I'm willing to see if the author manages to get some more info that might make a case for why Faith should remain. →Bobby← 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable aside from her tig ole bitties. DCEdwards1966 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable stub. Spinach Dip 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete While she is unquestionably an attractive young lady, that does not make her eligible for an encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete her breasts might be notable, but she is not. Lankiveil 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep She may not be notable to you people, but where I come from she is fairly well known. Simply because you do not know her does not make her unworthy of record.
Delete - NN, and the article is vacuous. Pete Fenelon 01:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Amir E. Aharoni 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 The result was keep: (nomination withdrawn). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inverkeilor

Very unnotable place in Scotland is the reason why it should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet2006 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 November 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - as per WP:AFDP precedents, Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size -- Whpq 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. All towns are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. It gets 17,000 Google hits [36]. Hut 8.5 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It's a place, so it should be kept. Needs to be expanded, though. Spinach Dip 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it exists, it stays. Nuttah68 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, real, verifiable place. Lankiveil 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep It's a real place in Angus. Now it needs a real article. Robovski 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that the article can stay, no more views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jet2006 (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 was D.E.L.E.T.E. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of minor characters in W.I.T.C.H. (TV series)

There are already two pages listing most of the WITCH characters (excluding individual character pages), and they are tagged to be merged together in the future. Non-notable characters should go on one or other of those pages pending their merger, or are not important enough to be mentioned anywhere, let alone on their own page

A third page containing WITCH has already been edited to remove WITCH characters, Wikipedia simply doesn't need a fourth page containin WITCH character.

perfectblue 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Most of those characters aren't even important enough to have a name. A list of non-notable things is still non-notable. --Jamoche 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Second. Plus there are too many pages dedicated to this topic already (three, plus one recently purged) perfectblue 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete None of them have there own page, one editor User:Tyar, I've asked him to comment here. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Delete I did write the content in this article, but only because of some requests and a friend who needed to check up some stuff (long story short). I really don't care if it gets deleted. Tyar 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. SEC recognition is easy to come by. Kimchi.sg 10:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Market Technicians Association (MTA)

NN-trade assoc. delete DesertSky85451 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the related page: Chartered Market Technician

Keep. It's also an examination and self-regulatory organization whose credentials are recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission. See the references that I added.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Being a government certified gathering of beancounters does not, in itself, an encyclopedic subject make --Aim Here 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge ~~to Chartered Market Technician and keep that one~~ One article seems adequate. The professional title for individuals will be more significant, I believe. GRBerry 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Modifying my opinion; we should only have one now, but which one it should be is not as clear. GRBerry 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Aim Here and nom. Also seems to be part of a walled-garden series of vanity edits by one of the organization officers. --Calton | Talk 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete importance is unclear. Arbusto 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumbling Towers

Delete. See Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas and convince me that this doesn't fall under several headings. Michaelbusch 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. - Tutmosis 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete no sign that they meet WP:MUSIC. Change to keep if evidence of notability is provided. Xtifr _tälk 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In agreement with the people above me. Spinach Dip 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Baleete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep-Seems to be notable. Anyway article was very informative to me. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of WP:MUSIC (Wikipedia's standard criteria for musician notability) do you think they meet? I see no signs that they meet any! Having an "informative" article is not a criteria for inclusion. I could write a far more informative article about my own musical career (member of a short-lived punk band in the seventies, numerous solo appearances at private parties since), but I'm not notable enough! Xtifr _tälk 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

After 5 days, there are five votes for delete and one weak keep. Admins, does this consistute rough consensus? Michaelbusch 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Arnold

Fails WP:BIO - crz crztalk 15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Trebor 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 08:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Grave digger and Grinder are known music groups in Germany and their lively drummer deserves a place in WP. The article seems to have been started by a real fan, needs to be touched up. IA (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Irfanali --Arvedui 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Not only is WP:BIO a guideline and not a policy, this article does not fail WP:BIO. He is a verifiable figure and a once famous musician. The article needs expansion, but what can you do?

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clean up: long-time (though non-founding) member of notable band meets WP:MUSIC (the relevant guideline here), but the article is full of pointless hype. Xtifr _tälk 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Xtifr. -Kubigula (ave) 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and provide better reliable sources so that this meets our WP:BLP policy. Yamaguchi先生 22:58, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnus Wolff Eikrem

16 yr-old Manchester United youth team player, hasn't played for the side yet Dangherous 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete non-notable. - Tutmosis 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close as disruptive vandalism from a single-purpose account. Uncle G 15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

unencyclopedic Will H.H. 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge/redirect I have redirected, if anyone wants to merge content, have at it. W.marsh 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Podiums

Article consists of: (1). The president's podiums have "names". (2). A photo gallery of said podiums. Wholly non-notable; effectively ... POTUS-cruft? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, and expand. The podiums are actually the topic of occasional media attention, and are certainly recognizable in the US. Xoloz 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not to be dissentious, but there is no notability or media attention mentioned in the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep on the requirement that it's expanded a little. Ben W Bell talk 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to President of the United States. The podiums do not warrant their own article. DCEdwards1966 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect--this is trivial enough that it probably should go in Press Briefing Room (White House), where they are most often used. Also they are lecterns, not podiums. The podium is the platform he stands on. --Tysto 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, but should be expanded. Lankiveil 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Merge per either DCEdwards or Tysto. They aren't even podiums (though I know everybody calls them that). This is PrezCruft, or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Presidential Trivia? Pete Fenelon 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn and possibly slang only used around the WH. Any relevant information can be inserted into the articles for POTUS, briefing room, etc. SliceNYC 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, {{db-band}} and WP:Music both refer. (aeropagitica) 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Senshi

No claims to notability (except the Spandex thing); may be hoax; no evidence that the band passes WP:MUSIC. Charlene 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per db-nonsense, I would say. Anyone oppose? yandman 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 D3l3t3 ~ trialsanderrors 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W00tness

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}}

Speedy tag and importance tag removed, so I bring it here. This is a non-notable web comic. It fails every aspect of WP:WEB as initially admitted by the authors on the talk page. Nothing notable here. IrishGuy ^talk 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection to "fails every aspect of WP:WEB" Please see talk page, innocent bystanders! Tar7arus 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your only argument that it meets number 3 is that it has hosting. By that rationale, everyone who uses GoDaddy.com meets that criteria. This comment here illustrates that even the original author concedes that it doesn't meet the criteria: So, in order to be considered, he has to win an award, be published somewhere else, or be advertised in some manner? I find that unfair, but I suppose rules are rules. Do you have any suggestions for helping us meet these criteria in some manner in the future? Please stop attempting to send people to influence the discussion as you are doing on your forum. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have been arguing this since you first posted the article for speedy deletion. I am the one that removed the speedy tag, as it said to do so if we planned on contesting it. We posted a hang on tag as well. I removed the importance tag, because the importance of the article has been asserted. And yes, the author did say that it didn't meet the criteria in the beginning, but he hadn't seen what we had added to the article before posting that. We have continually stated the fact that the comic was recognized by Blizzard on the talk page for the article, but again, you have ignored it. And as for the hosting example: Wikipedia specifically states that sites like GoDaddy.com and Angelfire.com, etc. do not count as independant hosts. bungie.org however, is a completely independant site owned by an individual person, making it completely different. IrishNinjaSpark 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB at all. Not even close. You cannot have Shea host his site with a company and then turn around and claim they are independent of each other. That is like saying that every freely hosted site on Geocities is "distributed" by geocities and since geocities is owned by Yahoo that must mean that Yahoo distributes that content. Not quite.

The Blizzard link is entirely irrelevant. It was a one paragraph link. It wasn't a well known award, nor was it in any level distribution. It was also, arguably, not independent of the creator as that "feature" comes from people emailing in their favorite links. How do I know the creator himself didn't send in that link? Blizzard didn't recognize the webcomic. Blizzard put up a link which was emailed to them for a fan section. Very different.

As for the assertion of importance, saying The importance of this article is to provide a deeper insight and more information on the characters featured in this comic, the background of the comic itself, and the way this comic is seen by its fans. isn't illustrating any level of importance. That is quite simply using Wikipedia as a fan site. This isn't a notable webcomic. It has a forum with a grand total of 35 members...not exactly proof of an overwhelming fan base. And frankly, seeing as how you are a moderator on the forums, your lobbying for this article is more than a slight conflict of interest. With no verifiable notability, no sign of coming anywhere near meeting WP:WEB, this article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. IrishGuy ^talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom and self admission of original author. →Bobby← 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Whpq 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. Nuttah68 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not Delete. This article is just as important as any of the other ones on this encyclopedia; and if those who would see its deletion have an objection to webcomic-based pages, then I would like to direct your attention to the xkcd page, which was allowed to remain on this site. The w00tness page in question is not being self-promoted by the author or those other staff of the w00tness forums; they are merely defending something which they feel has a right to be on this encyclopedia. And as for recognition, the mention by Blizzard's World of Warcraft Community Spotlight and the hosting by the largest Halo fansite on the entire internet (Halo.bungie.org) should fulfill your criteria. CaptainKirk91 19:22, 10 November 2006

As noted above and repeatedly on the talk page, no, that doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable webcomic that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Sorry, but it has to go. Lankiveil 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

~~Do Not Delete.~~ What is it exactly that this community has against hosting an informational article about an up-and-coming webcomic? It seems like for no reason, you all have ganged up on a small group of people trying to publish some information and have abused the powers of being able to edit this encyclopedia. Perhaps I'm being naive, but the WP:WEB explanation says that an article is notable if it meets any one of the criteria; I would direct you especially to the third characteristic: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. In what way does the hosting of the site by the very well-known halo.bungie.org not meet this criteria? And you can't say that it has to meet the others as well. The WP:WEB page specifically states that only one of the criteria must be meant. So I say to you, WikiKGB, in what way is w00tness lacking? CaptainKirk91 23:52, 11 November 2006

First, please don't vote more than once. Second, as your exact words illustrate, this is an up-and-coming webcomic which means at this juncture it isn't notable and it isn't encyclopedic. It isn't personal and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the webcomic. It simply doesn't meet the criteria for WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. My site is hosted by a very well-known provider, but because it's not independently notable in and of itself, it would not qualify under WP:WEB. Criteria 3 would only apply if it were actually being linked to on a daily basis by halo.bungie.org, which it is not. In fact, hardly anyone links to this particular webcomic [37]. If this comic attains some measure of fame or notoriety on the level of Penny Arcade or Dinosaur Comics, or if it is published in a major newspaper or comic book with widespread distribution, then its inclusion into Wikipedia will probably find more widespread support. Lankiveil 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

Clarification question. Does having an article on Wikipedia count as being noted by a mjor website? Does having a featured article count as a mojor award? Tar7arus 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to make an article and use that article to illustrate why that article should exist? IrishGuy ^talk 17:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is this: If it were a particularly good article that was of good enough quality to be considered worthy of being an A-grade article of even featured, would being a featured article count as the major independant award required to not fail at WP:WEB ? Tar7arus 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't fit the definition of a well known and independent award from a publication or organization. While the article itself is rewarded in a sense, it isn't by definition an award nor is it well known. And even at that, it would be the article itself which garnered the recognition and not the subject which would still fail WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question asked, Question answered, thankyou Tar7arus 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy ^talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Does not seem notable as a webcomic. Doesn't meet notability standards for Wikipedia. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete Even if just for an example to other would-be wikipedia non-notable comics, this should stay Tar7arus 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow non-notable articles to remain as examples to ward off other non-notable articles. IrishGuy ^talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Sandstein 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sorry, guys - it isn't notable enough yet.--TheOtherBob 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dalton (porn star)

This article is an extensively-rewritten draft of the same subject deleted at the earlier AfD. A DRV discussion, while permitting the rewrite, raised questions about the correctness of new sources, and whether they qualified the article under WP:PORNBIO. In view of these concerns, I have editorially undertaken a new AfD to evaluate the article. Weak Delete. Xoloz 16:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall the content here before the previous deletion, but from the look of what's been compiled on the article page I'd have to weigh on in the side of "keep"; Dalton is one of the main porn-muscle celebs; if he only had two "feature films" (now three, although on www.hisx.com or wherever the new image is from there are six listed for sale; and there are three I know of that aren't listed there) that doesn't seem enough of a disqualification, given his extremely high profile in muscle-porn print media and his celebrity status on the party circuit; there's guys who still have articles who are nowhere near as high profile. This is far from my usual area of interest/kibbitzing in Wikipedia, but I decided to add my vote as necessary, so it's Strong Keep.Skookum1 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep The disputed sources at the DRV were replaced with the magazine websites that showed him on the cover of their magazines or retail outlets offering the products referenced in the article. One of the disputes—that gay pornographic magazines are not specifically mentioned as criteria at WP:PORNBIO—is true; however, that is an oversight. If you read the discussion there, it was always intended that the criteria for inclusion of gay performers was to parallel that for straight performers with allowances for the reduced size of the target audience for gay pornography.

As for the relative/parallel importance of the magazines themselves; Hoover's listing for Penthouse shows sales of $53.8 million; the listing for PlanetOut shows sales of $35.6 million—66% of those for Penthouse Media Group. PlanetOut publishes the SpecPub Inc. titles Men (magazine), Unzipped, Freshmen (magazine), and 2 (magazine).

Dalton appeared on the cover of the July 2002 issue of Men and was selected as Men's "Man of the Year" for 2002. He appeared on the cover of the July 2006 issue of Unzipped; he was also cover model for the 2003 Adam Gay Video Directory, the definitive guide to gay pornographic films. Additionally, the article covers his time in prison for violating his probation.

To question the inclusion of an article on a gay porn performer with this much exposure and recognition just doesn't make sense. While I have to assume good faith, the AfD leads me to believe that my rebuttals to the objections at the DRV were ignored and that the references in the article in its present form weren't examined before the article's nomination here. It's more than a bit galling to have spent more than 5 hours writing an article with references to undeniably verifiable sources (unless someone wants to challenge the display of the publication's covers at its own website) and still have it listed in an AfD.—Chidom ^talk 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. His appearance in print press is enough to make a Wikipedia article justifiable.--Wormsie 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete His appearance in a small amount of print media may be enough to amke an article justifiable, but it does not make it verifiable. I have looked and cannot find a single reliable, neutral source of any information on this person. Porn magazines are notoriously unreliable for anything but trivia. What mainstream coverage is there? Guy 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consult the list of gay porn stars page, or the regular porn stars page, and tell me how many of the individuals with linked articles have "mainstream coverage".Skookum1 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dallas Voice is not a porn magazine, it is a well-established community newspaper.—Chidom ^talk 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. I found the article useful which is what encyclopeadia articles are supposed to be.--hyarmion 10:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - this article is far better referenced that most of the articles on Wikipedia. Notability established by Skookum1, above. Zeromacnoo 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Chidom's impressive rewrite. Notable in niche genre. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted as {{db-nonsense}} l3373-speak. (aeropagitica) 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pwn symbol

Er... _JD^talk 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. A supposed internet usage attributed to a website with no alexa ranking and 12 google hits? -- Fan-1967 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsensical and not widespread. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sam Clark 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Rhatigan

This person is non-notable, there are no working refs in the article, and wouldn't be appropriate if they did. IronDuke 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep There is an article from The New York Times that has Suzanne Rhatigan as the focus of an article[38]. However, I also found this[39] (she's 135). I hate saying this, but there is some sort of lurking notablity existing here, I just can't put my finger on it. Yanksox 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The NYTimes thing is from 14 years ago (and covers many, many bands who, like Ms. Rhatigan, go nowhere), and the website you refer to (and thanks for actually taking the time to look) refers to her as "unknown." Did she chart anywhere? Influence anyone? Win any awards? It seems to me like we're entering a phase where people are notable if anyone has ever mentioned them in any newspaper, magazine, or blog, or they get over a thousand hits on Google (never mind that they're mostly WP mirrors) or if they're "clearly notable," like elementary schools. Sigh. I kinda thought this would happen, but it's still depressing. IronDuke 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying she's clearly notable, I'm usually in defense of deletion of schools and malls. Your suggestions are vague and can be expanded on anything. Just keep everything in mind and use policy *cough*WP:MUSIC*cough*. Yanksox 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks for your reply. I checked out WP:MUSIC. Does she pass any of those tests? I'm not sure what you meant about my suggestions being vague. What would make it clearer? IronDuke 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I'm being vague in a way, just read the policy and apply it here. Yanksox 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I guess you are being vague and I'm missing the point. You're saying the policy supports my position, right? Is that what the *cough* meant? IronDuke 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete appears tantalisingly close to notability but stops just short. Kavadi carrier 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Seems unclear... also references were added late, giving this another chance.W.marsh 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Once notable, always notable. The references establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:MUSIC, multiple independent articles where the artist is featured. -- Whpq 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. May be obscure today but was previously notable. If there was a NYT review there is probably more that can be added. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - vaguely notable for the Craig Charles connection, and there are some Web resources, although borderline on WP:MUSIC. Pete Fenelon 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable non-league football team, {{db-group}} and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh united

A Scottish under-16 soccer club less than a year old? Not in Wikipedia, mate. Dangherous 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete rough equivalent to a little league or middle school sports team, and we'd never let either of those have articles (with good reason too). All the redlinks suggest the author is planning on articles for all the players as well. Hopefully that can be stopped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Bubba hot ep 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Just a local kids' footy team. Good luck to them but they aren't encyclopedic in any way. Keresaspa 17:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no nomination = nothing to discuss; default keep. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat Young (artist)

Listing this incomplete nomination, started by User:82.3.90.61. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Wars

Non-notable, non-verifiable (no relevant Ghits on either Bus Wars or Anthony Bianchi). Literally made up in school Tonywalton | Talk 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. - Tutmosis 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Can't be speedied as {{nonsense}} as that doesn't include fictional material. This is still non-notable schoolboycruft and is certainly non-encyclopedic. (aeropagitica) 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete blatantly a violation of WP:NFT Hut 8.5 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above - but only when I've stopped laughing... at words like "valuger" and "chacter". Oh, I know I shouldn't, but the article is pure comedy and I will keep a copy to cheer me up on a winter's eve. Bubba hot ep 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment BJAODN, perhaps? ~~86.129.70.110 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~~expleteive deleted. log in, you pillockTonywalton | Talk 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly say, but definitely one for the personal collection. Purely on style, definitely not on notable content - on that I would have speedied it. (Yes, I know, this article is not up for speedy). sigh Bubba hot ep 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete this is a model application of WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Schoolbuscruft. Caknuck 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I recommend a swift deletion for this junk. Youngster of Germany 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted by NawlinWiki. (aeropagitica) 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Zetterlund

afd tag placed by 62.246.209.113 who added the page to the deletion log (afd3) but omitted to add an afd2 tag. Note that the page has now been tagged for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. Adding to avoid corrupted AfD page. No vote Tonywalton | Talk 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Seattle Christian School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following an AfD back in February, here, but has not improved since. Following the closure of the previous AfD, the following comment was added to the article's Talk page: Cleanup arising from AFD seems in order. However, looking at the history, the last time that this article was edited was when the AfD notice was removed back in February--no one has touched it since. This article is two sentences long and asserts no particular importance. Previous AfD discussion seemed to hinge on arguments along the lines of the school having been mentioned in the local paper (as are many non-notable things) and being the recipient of federal funds (as are many non-notable things). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of edits since February strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Makes no assertion of notability. Proponents cannot claim that they are still working on expanding the article as they do in other school AfDs.. Montco 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into an article on the local community, verifiable but not very long. Alternately, keep as is. If you want a school article cleaned up, the best strategy to get that done is not to nominate a zillion articles the same day. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate a zillion, I nominated eleven. I got the idea when someone put a bunch of non-notable webcomics up earlier this week. This is no different. There are literally hundreds of poorly-written, unsourced articles on non-notable schools that survived VfDs last year because our standards were more relaxed at the time, many of which haven't had a single edit since then (as with this one, although the AfD wasn't quite as long ago as the others). I am simply attempting to do some cleanup. Puerto De La Cruz 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eleven in a day is incredibly excessive and disruptive. They've been around for a while; waiting another day or eleven won't hurt. I would be interested in cleaning up this article, except it's too hard to clean up thirteen articles all nominated for AfD on the same day. JYolkowski // talk 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, AfD is not cleanup. If you want to clean the articles up, edit the article to improve it. JYolkowski // talk 14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Directory entry. Seems that either none of the people who voted "keep and expand" 9 months ago cared enough to do so, or else they were unable to find verifiable information with which to do so. Either way, it'd seem to indicate that this article isn't going to expand. Shimeru 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Shimeru. -- Kicking222 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per both incarnations of WP:SCHOOL and WP:LOCAL, and merge if desired. Meets all content policies. I checked the deletion policy and was confused to find that "infrequently edited" was not one of the reasons mentioned. Perhaps this isn't such a good reason to delete an article? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Unexpandable stub" is a reason for deletion. Shimeru 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Only an introductory blurb and external links, notability aside this has almost no informative value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This article says nothing that couldn't also be said of a thousand other schools in the US. I give its odds of getting any better as vanishingly close to zero. D e nni ☯ 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

UDelete Per nom among other issues. Google searches fail to find any verifiable information to expand this article beyond the one line stub that it is. JoshuaZ 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. As a small private school, I don't know of a merge target which would be more than a directory. If this school is a member of an association of similar schools, I would like to see the information kept and this article made into a redirect. Otherwise it does not seem to pass the minimum guideline of WP:LOCAL. --Dystopos 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cleanup is not a reason to delete, and no real reason for deletion has been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:V and WP:N as well as WP:SCHOOL. Bad faith nomination by a vandal. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment what evidence do you have that the user is a "vandal"? The behavior while distasteful seems to be WP:SOCK compliant. And what evidence do you have that this does meet WP:V? I couldn't find any google hits that were useful nor has anyone else. Simply claiming that it meets WP:V and WP:N doesn't make it so. JoshuaZ 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      - WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors is a very important rule. When someone nominates 11 articles for deletion in a day I want to see their edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        As far as that section is relevant, I would have prefered if the user had not done so in this matter. However, that section is a) written as more of an advisement than anything else as far as I can tell and b) simply means that the closing admin should disregard the nom if they are taking a pure vote tally. JoshuaZ 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The five independent references are more than sufficient for providing basic-level verifiability coverage. If there is a specific piece of content being contested, please let me know. Seeing as how no valid reason has been provided for deletion under policy, combined with the disruptive circumstances under which this article was nominated (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination)) I am moving for a speedy keep closure. Silensor 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are an additional 19 LexisNexis U.S. News matches for this school, most of which are related to the West Seattle Christian School Choir and their involvement with the 1995 Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat tour. Silensor 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment If you are as concerned with this threadbare article (and other school articles in equally dismal condition) as you appear to be, perhaps you could help to make it a better article by adding what you know. IMHO, an article this brief and this generic (unless it is =universally= held to be a notable subject) simply holds us up as amateurs. Either it should be expanded, which I have no interest in doing (I have long held that only truly notable schools should be included in Wikipedia) or it should be deleted. I would also note that, unless I am mistaken, this article fails every criterion for "keep" in WP:SCHOOLS3. D e nni ^talk 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Silensor. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Silensor, or merge in line with WP:SCHOOLS suggestion for these type of article. Yamaguchi先生 22:07, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, G11 blatant advertising. Aguerriero (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UR Holding

Advertisement. And its link in UR. Anthony Appleyard 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete for "Blatant advertising". - Tutmosis 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - per above and tagged as such. →Bobby← 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as above Hut 8.5 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NN and WP:V. It is not confirmed that the nominator is a sockpuppet of WaltCip, and accusations of WaltCip being a sockpuppeteer are incivil and completely irrelevant to this AFD, which is not in bad faith (despite the nominator being blocked) and is valid. The issues addressed were not answered. --Core desat 02:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in May 2005, here, but has not improved since. Article does not assert any particular notablity or importance beyond having finished ninth place in a choral competition. The only time that this article has been edited since 2005 was to fix a typo. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of edits since last year strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets content policies. Alternately, merge into Shanghai per WP:LOCAL as this information is worth keeping. P.S. This must be a huge school to have 144 people on its staff. JYolkowski // talk 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a not a directory.
Delete There might be something in Chinese that indicates noteworthiness, but I couldn't find anything in English. As an aside, I checked the link to the choral competition, and can't find any indication that this school participated -- so even its weak claim to notability is unsourced. Shimeru 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. D e nni ☯ 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. But hoping someone who cares about this article can find sources in chinese to demonstrate notability. JoshuaZ 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This individual has explicitly stated that he is simply going down the schools for deletion archive and voting delete without valid justification, and has encouraged others to do so on his talk page. This same meaningless, typo-filled nonsense has been cut and pasted into multiple AfDs, and is all the more likely to be evidence of bad faith in this case, given that the website this person claims is more useful than this article is in fact entirely in Chinese. How's your Chinese Arbusto/oo? Alansohn 14:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:V, ultimatum not met.--WaltCip 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Yuckfoo, you're in violation of WP:ASG and WP:CIVIL. I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet. Moreover, you have failed to argue against WP:V and WP:SCHOOLS.--WaltCip 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Well that answers who made the nominations. I presume you meant to be signed in with the other account? JoshuaZ 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I challenge those who say "delete per nom" to cite an actual reason under policy for deletion of this article. Also, I would like to ask WaltCip to pick one account and stick to it. Silensor 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um... where did I say I was running multiple accounts?--WaltCip 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:NN and WP:V. No independent reliable sources. Now, I challenge you to cite an actual reason under policy for keeping it. Shimeru 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
keep per above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - does not assert notability. Moreschi 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It was last nominated a year and a half ago. Hardly a case of "pitching until you win." Shimeru 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge do not keep. Should be a speedy delete as empty. Does not meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS3 and the only WP:SCHOOLS criteria it appears to meet is the contested 50 year guideline (there is support for 75 or 100 years). Vegaswikian 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Have to vote keep since the entire nom violates the sock policy. We also lack decent coverage on Chinese schools, which everyone knows is increasingly important. I suspect this article requires Chinese speakers to add the sources. --JJay 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairmeadow School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in May 2005, here, but has not improved since. Article does not assert any particular notablity or importance beyond the unsourced claim that the campus is home to the "nationally recognized" Jackson Hearing Center. "Jackson Hearing Center" only returns 146 Google hits, in spite of the fact that there are a number of entities with this name (besides the one in California referenced in this article, there are also Jackson Hearing Centers in Tennessee and Mississippi). If the hearing center is notable (which I doubt), it should have its own article rather than being in this one. Getting back to the subject at hand, this article hasn't been edited since May, and is very badly written (not a reason for deletion; just pointing out that nobody has been working on the article). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of recent edits strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It was up for deletion and was not deleted. If nothing has changed it should not be deleted because nothing has changed. I still think it is notable.Dapoloplayer 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article claims to have a nationally recognized hearing center, but provides no sources to back it up. TJ Spyke 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, received state-wide honor in 2006, info and ref. added to article. Accurizer 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, seems rather improved. Only one rather trivial secondary source, but that's more than many school articles have. Shimeru 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no "how is this useful" standard, nor is there a "their (sic) website is more useful" standard. Please refer to any meaningful standard as a basis for your participation. Alansohn 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by a significant consensus of 11 keeps to five deletes (if I counted correctly) 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and in fact the school has been covered and article provides relevant references, and 4) receipt of the California Business for Education Excellence Foundation award and coverage of the school and the Jackson Hearing Center meets criterion 1 of media coverage as well as criterion 5 set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff., and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn and above commenters. It is becoming difficult to assume good faith from the nominator in question at this point. Yamaguchi先生 22:38, 14 November 2006
Speedy keep as this is part of a set of bad faith and disruptive nominations. Silensor 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per above. Violates the sock policy. --JJay 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashtree Primary School (3rd nomination)

This is a strange one--I am not sure if this should be considered the second or third nomination. This article was kept following a VfD in June of 2005, here, and was concurrently on VfD for most of the year 2005, here, resulting in no consensus, and has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of recent edits strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Puerto De La Cruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Puerto De La Cruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom. Also, every school recieves one of those reports, so that doesn't help the article. TJ Spyke 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets content policies (e.g. verifiable) and is a very good article. Contrary to what the nominator stated, there are multiple non-trivial published works cited in the article so the article patently does meet WP:SCHOOL. No evidence presented to indicate that the outcomes of the two previous AfDs were incorrect. JYolkowski // talk 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see three sources provided. One is the school's own site, which isn't third-party. The Hertfordshire site appears to be a directory listing. The Ofsted report is something that they do on every school. You could make the same argument for non-notable buildings by pointing out that they have building inspection reports. Puerto De La Cruz 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that OFSTED reports are done on every school doesn't make them trivial as a reference. In fact, they are a great source of information to expand the article. Regardless of whether you believe that this article meets or doesn't meet WP:SCHOOL (I think it does), it patently meets our content policies. JYolkowski // talk 15:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, verifiable and notable qua school. This delete-schools push has long since passed the point of absurdity. -- Visviva 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, Visviva, but I didn't realize that arguing for what I believe in- in a rational manner, and without hurting anyone- was absurd. Please excuse me, and please mind WP:NPA. I'd much rather believe in something than believe in nothing, and the only thing that would be absurd would be caring whether you agreed with my belief or not. -- Kicking222 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  - A little touchy, aren't we? I don't understand how anything I said could possibly be regarded as a personal attack, least of all against someone who did not even join the discussion until after my comment was posted. But I also don't understand why we would be expected to be anything but annoyed at being called back here for the third time to debate this trivial issue. As far as I can tell, no new arguments have been raised; there is, therefore, no reason to dig up a horse that has already been killed and buried twice. When there is so much constructive work that needs to be done, and so much destructive content that actually needs to be deleted, why must we continue to waste our collective energies on this silliness? Signing off, -- Visviva 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    - For a personal attack to exist, it must be personal, I see no such attack. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Puerto's nom and comment above. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete The school is verifiable, in that many organizations have gathered statistics on them. However, I cannot see anything but statistics, not so much as a mention of an opinion in a forum. Please show me anything that may change my mind. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete May be verifiable, but so is the Quickie Mart on the corner. Definitely not notable. D e nni ☯ 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Denni D, and we really have only the Ofsted report as verifiable (if that) so we don't have multiple non-trivial sources even if you accept OFSTED reports are non-trivial. JoshuaZ 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No non-routine coverage from independent sources to show that anyone else considers it notable. No more notable than the local Marks & Spencer. GRBerry 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - having an OFSTED report merely proves a school's existence. It is not reason to keep an article about a school. The content appears to be a summary of the contents of the OFSTED report. Ohconfucius 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:V and WP:N as well as WP:SCHOOL. Bad faith nomination by a vandal. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Er, what evidence do you have that the user is a "vandal"? The behavior while distasteful seems to be WP:SOCK compliant. JoshuaZ 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      - if you endorse this use of sockpuppet that is your conscience not mine Yuckfoo 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Why don't you actually read WP:SOCK? There are in fact many circumstances where there is nothing wrong with using socks. JoshuaZ 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination), this nomination is clearly being made in bad faith by a single purposed account. The actual article is better than 99% of everything else on Wikipedia, it has five independently verifiable sources, meeting WP:V, and meets the bastardized WP:SCHOOLS guideline as well. Silensor 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a speedy keep candidate. --Core desat 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Primary school. Herostratus 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This article has hardly changed since the last very strange AFD, and despite the prose, there is nothing here that indicatesnotability. --Core desat 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeating nominations until one succeeds. JoshuaZ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Silensor, meets several criteria within the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 22:19, 14 November 2006
Keep, large school, good article. bbx 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coombe Dean School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. The text about Andrew Honywill is unsourced and should probably be removed; as such, it should certainly not be read as an assertion of notability. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As a High School it is certainly more notable that the Primary Schools also up for deletion. The stats from the OFSTED web site show its existance outside the material put out by the School itself. The article does however need improvement and I hope this Afd attracts it. --Bduke 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, multiple non-trivial sources are cited in the article so it does meet WP:SCHOOL. Alternately, a merge to Plymouth per WP:LOCAL may be a reasonable compromise, although there is evidence in the article that this school is of more than local interest. JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This one's pretty well cited for a school article. The Guardian is certainly a reliable source. Needs some cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to delete. Shimeru 05:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Awards, citations, this article is fine. Many of the recent schools noms do warrent deletion, but not this one. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Shimeru and HighInBC. I'm not convinced the mentioned awards are enough but they are definitely a start. JoshuaZ 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take into account the potential of the article, as a wiki as stub has great potential. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article was created in Feb 2005. It has had almost two years to meet "potential." If you can expand it and prove notability then do it. Saying someone in the future might be able to is not a reason to keep it. Offer sources. Arbusto 03:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by an overwhelming consensus of 19 keeps to seven deletes (if I counted correctly) 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and in fact the school has been covered and article provides relevant references, 4) this is a high school, and we have near perfect precent for the retention of existing high schools with any non-trivial content, a standard that this article meets and exceeds, and 5) the teacher of the year award in 2004 granted by The Guardian (one of England's most prominent newspapers), meets criterion 5 set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff., and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. JoshuaZ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters, notability is demonstrated within the article sufficient to meet WP:SCHOOLS as currently proposed. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was No consensus, so kept by default. Yomangani ^talk 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jannali East Public School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. To quote from the original VfD nom, No part of the article seems useful or notable. I am certainly not seeing any assertion of notability. According to the lead-in, they've trimmed some trees recently (I am not making this up). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets content policies and seems likely to meet WP:SCHOOL (the sources in the article may already do so). Alternately, a merge with the local community article may be a possibility but would be my second choice here. JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Jannali East. The mention in Hansard by the local member is an independent source but we need more than one. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ooh, they've cut some trees! Certainly, this is encyclopædic material! Lankiveil 08:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Of local interest only. Non-notable school. D e nni ☯ 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What about WP:LOCAL then? Why not a merge to Jannali, New South Wales? JROBBO 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Among other issues has WP:V problems even before we get to notability. JoshuaZ 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom --Michael Johnson 11:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete pre nom. --Roisterer 02:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I really get fed up with AfDs that don't have any facts put to them. A bit of research wouldn't go astray here, rather than "not notable" assertions without any reason whatsoever which seem to be the norm on AfDs nowadays. Despite WP:SCHOOLS not being policy, it is persuasive, and we should take note of the criteria there. A search on some newspaper databases brings up a note in the Sydney Morning Herald in March 2006 about the school celebrating its 50th anniversary on June 16 2006. A look at WP:SCHOOLS shows that schools over 50 years old, for which this is now applicable, have been declared as verifiable. Precedent for public primary schools has kept schools that are over 50 years old. Another mention from 1999 (21 July 1999, "Schools told: stop saving for a rainy day" indicates that the school was in serious financial trouble under the Carr Government's education policy which left the school at one stage with only $5000 in its bank accounts. I'm happy to look for more articles if you want, but I think there's more to this article than most people think, but no one can be bothered taking a look. Even if the article is not verifiable still, there is worth in merging the environment stuff and financial problems in the late 1990s to Jannali, New South Wales as per WP:LOCAL. So how about it? JROBBO 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by a consensus of 14 keeps to a mere three deletes 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) this school was founded in 1956, meeting the fifty-year criterion set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that article must meet at least one of the guidelines specifications, and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Direct violation of WP:SOCK#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support --JJay 12:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely no asserted notability. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 on every single count. -- Kicking222 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's one user's proposal that has been going for only six days. How can that be relevant in any way at all? Use the proposal that people are more familiar with; and as I have already said, please do some research too. You haven't asserted why it doesn't meet those criteria anyway. JROBBO 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- While I would caution using the current WP:SCHOOLS3 proposal in so far as it is not fully stable and it isn't clear how many editors actually endorse it I would point out that requesting that he explain why it doesn't meet the criteria is unreasonable. Since the criteria are inclusive he would need to go through each one and just say "nope not that one" which is time consuming and unproductive. If you think it does meet one of those criteria why don't you point it out?JoshuaZ 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I have actually - see my lengthy keep above. I'm sick of "not-notable" assertions that aren't backed up - all I'm asking is that this user explain why he thinks it is not notable. JROBBO 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Um, none of your stuff above meets any part of WP:SCHOOLS3. What part do you think it meets? JoshuaZ 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    - The article meets all standards of WP:SCHOOLS4, a new guideline that is only slightly less valid than WP:SCHOOLS3. As neither has been presented to Wikipedia users for review, let alone reached any form of consensus, neither are valid for any purpose in an AfD. The original WP:SCHOOL is still the only standard that has undergone any level of scrutiny, and must remain as the only meaningful guideline until an alternative has undergone a corresponding review and attempt at reaching consensus. Alansohn 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      - This seems pretty clearly to be a WP:POINT. JoshuaZ 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Furthermore, as I said above, it isn't at all clear to me that anyone should be following any of the proposed school guidelines. WP:SCHOOLS has about as much backing as the original defunct proposal had when it was tossed out (and multiple editors have tried to mark it as clearly rejected). Furthermore, the new WP:SCHOOLS3 proposal has been "presented" - it is in Wikipedia space and editors over at WP:SCHOOLS and at the village pump were invited over to take a look. So far, far less criticism has been lodged at that proposal. We can at least say it isn't clearly rejected unlike the previous. Trying to make WP:POINTs rather than engage in serious discussion is unhelpful. JoshuaZ 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Based on votes on actual AfDs, WP:SCHOOLS4 seems to have as much potential support as WP:SCHOOLS3, if not more. It's an exclusivist argument that's often heard and does not stand. Basically, WP:SCHOOLS3 is an equal violation of WP:POINT largely created by those who opposed the original WP:SCHOOL and now want to create a deletionist-oriented guideline under which a small fraction of 1% of all schools would qualify. It's nice to wrap up an approach in a guideline, but all [WP:SCHOOLS3]] does right now is glom together a series of unmeetable criteria with lots of verbiage so it sounds like something meaningful. WP:SCHOOL still offers the only proposed guideline that has endured any level of scrutiny and has been used repeatedly as justification to Keep AND to delete AND as part of multiple nominations over the past several days. If even those seeking to hide behind sockpuppets to delete articles are referencing WP:SCHOOL as a policy, then we have something that is reaching de facto consensus. Alansohn 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn and JROBBO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters. Meets WP:SCHOOLS being over 50 years old with multiple independent references. Yamaguchi先生 22:41, 14 November 2006
Speedy keep as this is part of a series of bad faith and disruptive nominations. Silensor 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - the nominator has since been blocked indefinitely, outed as a vandal that was disrupting Wikipedia. JROBBO 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep sock puppetry should never be condoned. --JJay 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's your reason? That, because the nominator was a vandal, the article is still valid? The issues raised by those requesting deletion do not matter at all? WP:SK points to an article being speedily kept if the nominator is a vandal and nobody disagrees with keeping the article, which certainly isn't the case here. Was this vote simply a way to say something besides "keep all schools"? -- Kicking222 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it was my way of saying that I hate sock puppets, that the entire nomination is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - specifically the "Voting and other shows of support" and "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors" sections - and that those who participate are implicitly condoning sock puppetry. I will not participate in a debate that is inherently corrupted at the outset by the nominator's need to hide behind a sock shield, with the ensuing automatic suspicion of double "voting", because to accept that corruption is a far more grievous affront than the destiny of any particular article. I will not lend tacit support by engaging with a vandal who has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Let those who want to argue inclusion/exclusion show their faces. All of that equals a keep or speedy keep as far as I am concerned. --JJay 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Would you prefer that we close this now, I'll immediately renominate it and I'll send a note to everyone in this discussion about the new nomination? JoshuaZ 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- My personal belief is that all nominations by sock puppets/vandals are de facto invalid and should be immediately closed by any admin aware of the situation. Any articles deleted as a result of those types of nominations are out of process and should be restored. What happens after that is a completely different issue. But my main concern- and this should be explicit in policy (but unfortunately is not) - is that socks/vandals/anoms should not be allowed to nominate on AfD. --JJay 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep unless someone has the energy to properly merge to a local district. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep explains my reasoning; I authored several of those points... Un focused 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JoshuaZ. Eluchil404 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
keep per unfocusd Audiobooks 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
keep: Bad faith nomination DXRAW 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth, no need to merge. Bahn Mi 02:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Organic growth is a buzzphrase, not an argument. JoshuaZ 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  - My desire to see this article to develop organically over time aside, this school has a history over 50 years old and meets the current iteration of WP:SCHOOLS. I am aware that some people do not share my belief that this and similar schools are notable. Bahn Mi 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Well, that's a bit better. I still don't know what the words "organic" or "organically" are doing. JoshuaZ 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spexel

Probable protologism and complete bollocks. Resolution of digital sound is related to sampling rate. Was deprodded and fake references added (referring to optical spectroscopy) by anon. No ghits for term exc WP & mirrors. Tubezone 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The word spexel IS used in spectroscopy, but it's pretty obscure: only 6 real ghits for "spexel" + "spectroscopy". No relation to audio. Tubezone 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. -- Whpq 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as likely hoax that completely and utterly fails the requirements of WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 05:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulmershe School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It has no demonstrated notability. It is mentioned inthe article for the town, and that mention could be expanded. Edison 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As a High School it is certainly more notable that the Primary Schools also up for deletion. The stats from the BBC web site show its existance outside the material put out by the School itself. The article does however need improvement and I hope this Afd attracts it. --Bduke 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the BBC stats don't prove much more than that the school exists and has students who took the GCSE. Neither of those claims are evidence of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I suggest High Schools are notable in the way that villages are. They contain much the same number of people. We do not delete articles on villages. Also biographies want to state which High School the subject went to and readers want to find out about the school. The best way to ensure this is not to delete articles on High Schools but to improve them. This argument does not apply to Primary Schools. These are rarely mentioned in biographical articles and they have less influence on people. --Bduke 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I've certainly seen articles on villages (or any other settlements) deleted when the only information is that "Dingsdorf is a village in the German state of Oberuntergammergau". All an article like that proves is that the place exists, which isn't enough for notability. Yes, if the village has more sources on it than that, it should probably get kept. To apply this analogy to this school, I don't see much more than the bare bones of existence in the sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - per "Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff." Agree that the article needs expanding, but I don't think that stub articles should be deleted simply because they're stubs. robwingfield ^(talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which "Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff."? If I knew of these it would help me vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - yes it needs to improve - but not be deleted. Ian Cairns 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, almost all English schools meet WP:SCHOOL because of their OFSTED reports. No evidence has been presented to indicate that this school is unlikely to do so. JYolkowski // talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear noteworthy. No nontrivial reliable secondary sources. OFSTED reports are trivial sources, because they exist for all schools as a mandatory function of the government, much like inspection reports for restaurants. In fact, it would be more noteworthy if an English school lacked an OFSTED report. Shimeru 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep The awards are a possible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". Arbusto 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - on that basis, should we delete all articles for which there is a comprehensive alternative web site? I don't think many would agree with you. robwingfield ^(talk) 08:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - My understanding is that WP:V does not require multiple sourcing; it only seems to require one reliable source. Thus, the OFSTED reports seem to establish verifiability. On the other hand, notability requires coverage in multiple non-trivial sources or something similar. Winning awards is usually sufficient for notablity, so I think the awards the school has won are sufficient to establish notability. -Kubigula (ave) 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the article meets all content policies. It's not really clear from the nomination why the nominator feels this article should be deleted; the solution to articles that fail to meet WP:SCHOOL is a merger, not deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, 4) this is is a high school and we have near perfect precedent for retention of existing high schools with any non-trivial content, a standard this article meets and exceeds, and 5) the school's receipt of the School Improvement award indicated for three consecutive years is evidence that the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per numerous reasons given above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters, article appears to meet our guidelines for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 22:56, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Elementary School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. As a matter of fact, the article has not been edited since October 2005, suggesting that it is an unexpandable stub, which is itself grounds for deletion. The presentation of contact info seems somewhat spamtastic, but this is almost irrelevant, as this entity does not seem notable enough to merit an article per any existing guideline or policy. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Further, quoting from Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, Granting inclusion to non-noteworthy schools is like handing students a passing grade just for showing up to class. Minimal standards encourage minimal accomplishment. Which seems to be exactly the case here. Puerto De La Cruz 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It has no claim of notability. It is mentioned in the article for the town, and that mention could be expanded. Edison 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Alfred, Maine per WP:LOCAL and as suggested by User:Edison. JYolkowski // talk 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Miniscule stub on a non-notable school. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 on every count. -- Kicking222 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No expansion in over a year indicates lack of interest or lack of sources. No reason to keep this stub around if either of those is true. Shimeru 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Has failed to meet universal WP:V requirements.--WaltCip 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Edison. JoshuaZ 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete as NIGGER POOP. --SuperDude 69 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Struck above comment as coming from a vandal making a point (see also this edit) who is merely voting on AfDs alphabetically (see user's contribs) and adding nonsense. -- Kicking222 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Not a single valid reason has been cited for deletion, despite the recurring voices saying "delete per nom". Speedy keep because this was disruptively nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet account in violation of policy. Silensor 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Failure of every proposed policy- including one strongly supported by school inclusionists such as yourself- is not a valid reason? -- Kicking222 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Please refrain from referring to me as a "school inclusionist" or making strawmen arguments. Contrary to what one might infer from your comment, I have voted to delete school-related articles in the past when appropriate (please check my history), but see no point in !voting to delete something when there is no reason under policy to do so. The content of this specific article is perfectly verifiable, arguably notable, and should be kept. Silensor 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete for lack of maintenance since last AFD, and also per WP:SCHOOL. Moreover, Google returns under 1,000 results. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Alfred, Maine. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This hasn't changed since the previous AFD, and there is nothing here to indicate that this elementary school is notable. --Core desat 18:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge to appropriate locality per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 22:17, 14 November 2006
Delete or Merge do not keep. Vegaswikian 00:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Caraway Elementary School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Further, quoting from Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, Granting inclusion to non-noteworthy schools is like handing students a passing grade just for showing up to class. Minimal standards encourage minimal accomplishment. Which seems to be exactly the case here. Puerto De La Cruz 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It has no claim of notability. It is mentioned in the article for the school district, and that mention could be expanded. Edison 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge, useful content. Nominating this many articles in one go is just silly as it makes it hard to accurately assess every single one of them. JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are over a hundred articles nominated for deletion every day. You don't have to !vote in the ones that you don't feel that you have time to accurately assess. Puerto De La Cruz 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the point. Assessing articles can take hours to dig up sources, expand the article, etc. I don't have 30 hours a day to fix all of the articles you've nominated. Don't nominate so many at one time, it's disruptive. JYolkowski // talk 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Puerto on this one. I'm not sure how this argument could possibly apply in any context. -- Kicking222 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No asserted notability of any kind, aside from having a principal die (and my elementary school's principal died when I was in eighth grade, so that's not exactly unique). -- Kicking222 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Kicking222. Shimeru 06:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Kicking. JoshuaZ 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article. Arbusto 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge do not keep. Vegaswikian 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayflower Primary School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. The closest thing that I can find to an assertion of notability is that a member of parliament attended the grand opening. Claims to be very old but was opened in 1979. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep The article has some content and weak claim to notability, in the form of awards won. Could use some independent third part sources such as press coverage of notability. Edison 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable, good article. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, claims to be "one of the oldest primary schools" in its town, which could very well be true, seeing that the locality in question is fairly recently established and somewhat small. This claim should be sourced, though, and isn't. There are other claims that could make it noteworthy if sourced -- but they aren't. No vote for now, though; willing to see whether someone can turn up those sources. Shimeru 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, they did. Shimeru 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) This is a large school (over 2,300 students) that offers a wide array of programs, structures and techniques as part of its curriculum (among other such unique programs, information re Project Carlos Santana will be added to article) article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, significant awards have been bestowed upon the school's staff, per information and sources added to article. Accurizer 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please per above and looks like bad faith nomination Yuckfoo 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the multiple awards won by both staff and students, thereby satisfying WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Seeing as how this is a multiple award winning school, and the article was nominated for deletion by a disruptive sockpuppet I am not opposed to a speedy keep closure. Silensor 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above, and per sockpuppet. JROBBO 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a result of multiple awards won by staff and students, satisfying the WP:SCHOOLS guideline as proposed. Yamaguchi先生 22:45, 14 November 2006
Speedy Keep per lets keep socks off AfD. --JJay 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moody Middle School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. Reads like ad copy.WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. Alansohn 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletenn middle school. Mention in the article for the town.Edison 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Port Moody, British Columbia, meets content policies and meets WP:SCHOOL as it is over 50 years old. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or merge per WP:SCHOOL if you feel it does not meet the criteria for having an independent article. No reason for deletion was presented in the nomination. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Historical value Moody High School 1951 - 1969, news coverage Girl Scouts reach out, books pour in for kids, has both finalist in 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge, that coupled with the inherent advantage I think schools have in notability(for educating so many people) this passes easily for me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting, but the DCYSC is simply a list of what students participated in it (so some students from Moody were in, this is not a claim of notability), the other pieces are an uncritical puff-piece about girl scout cookies and a minor note on another website about the earlier school burning down. Other than a 1 or two sentence article I don't see how any of this would be useful for verifying any facts. JoshuaZ 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you look further down the page you will see that both the finalists are from that school.

HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, that changes the matter slightly but not by much- winning a local science competition hardly qualifies as something notable nor would it allow us to expand the artice beyond another sentence still leaving this as a tiny stub. JoshuaZ 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a middle school, how notable does it have to be? A small town does not need to be notable as a person, and by the same logic not every topic needs excessive notability. Notability does not mean the article has room for improvement. Also, it is not a local science competition, it is a national competition. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the issue- middle schools need to be notable just like everything else. If that makes most middle schools not notable, oh well. As to the town matter, I have stated on many occasions that as far as I am concerned it would make sense to have very towns merged or deleted (I think there are a few small arguments against this that differentiate towns from schools but the overall notion is sound). Also, maybe I'm misreading things here, but the candidates were only semi-finalists. As I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong) that means they placed at the local level. JoshuaZ 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am gathering from this that you think all subjects need to be held to equal notability standard? I know that by policy that bio's are held to a higher standard. Do you think countries and musical bands should have the same standards?

I apologies if I am making unrealistic comparisions, I try to avoid that. But I think that subjects should be compared within it's context. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This article makes no assertion of notability. This is a very normal one-of-a-thousand middle schools. D e nni ☯ 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Denni and my above comment. JoshuaZ 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Normally non-notable schools would be candidates for merging (per WP:LOCAL, which enjoys more stability than the proposed WP:SCHOOLS). In this case the merge target would be School District 43 Coquitlam. Since that article is already on the long side, I vote to keep (with the recognition that the "reputation" section is not encyclopedic at all and should be removed.) --Dystopos 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. Article fully meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria: The school article is part of a series of similarly maintained articles related to a specific school board, school district, or other notable organization. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) article meets the WP:SCHOOL comprehensive coverage criteria.Alansohn 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is nothing intrinsically wrong with someone using a sock to nominate an article for AfD, and if the nom's claims are weak they should be evaluated under that basis. JoshuaZ 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually you are not supposed to create a new account for the purposes of making controversial decisions. While that may invalidate an AfD if caught fast enough, too many legimate users have participated here to stop it now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Er, where is that in the sock policy? JoshuaZ 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Admittly I was saying that from memory, but WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors seems to cover this. I would like to know the nominators true edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  - That section seems to make it seem like a less than advisable behavior but it isn't obviously forbidden by the section. JoshuaZ 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I said ...you are not supposed to... and the policy page says ..should not be used..., I think while I used different words, I accuratly described the policy. Regardless I have agreed with you that this AfD needs to continue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per HighInBC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. JROBBO 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. Reconsideration is reasonable. JoshuaZ 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is now apparent that this is a rash of bad faith nominations. The school article does meet the WP:SCHOOLS guideline and looks to be part of an ongoing WikiProject as well. Yamaguchi先生 22:43, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E. J. Albert (clarinet maker)

No evidence of notability. Does not meet notability guidelines for Biographies or Music Mdhandley 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Some google searching leads me to believe this person is notable. He created the Albert system clarinet, which is still used by many musicians. This link shows that his instruments are included in a historic collection of musical instruments. This antique Albert clarinet is going for $300 on eBay. There doesn't appear to be much biographical information about him online, but I bet he's in music history textbooks. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are huge numbers of Albert system clarinets in use out there, and a lot more than one at any given time on eBay. Google for "albert system" or "simple system" which is synonymous. Given the notability of the Albert system, I'd say its creator also must be considered notable. --Rsholmes 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fang Aili's research above and suggest a move to ~~Eugène J. Albert~~ Eugène Albert (per Mak).--Isotope23 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, but move to Eugène Albert per Grove and to avoid confusion with his son, also a clarinet maker, E.J. Albert (born Joseph-Eugène Albert 1860–1931), who did not create the Albert system, but made clarinets which were used for longer. Mak (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. I've expanded it a bit from Grove, a very good source of music info. Mak (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above; ask knowledgeable editors to create appropriate redirects. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for all the reasons thus far stated. It is clear that Eugène Albert is quite suitable for encyclopedic inclusion. One of hazards of the wikipedian way is the temptation, particularly when one is tired and nevertheless pushing oneself to accomplish more, to summarily reject the unfamiliar as an unwelcome demand on one's temporarily diminishing resilience. Better to resist that unkind impulse. Athaenara talk 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair, the article has undergone substantial expansion. Mak (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Chain Email Society of Australia (ACESA)

A silly little project by two Australian kids. Violates Wikipedia is not for something two little kids thought up in school one day OfficeGirl 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom's reasons and also the fact that it fails WP:CORP. →Bobby← 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Teiresias84 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. It was speedied once but that tag was removed by the article creator. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Admirable thought, but just something made up right now. Robovski 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a very worthy cause, but sadly not notable. Lankiveil 08:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Michael Johnson 11:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Mostyn

Does not meet WP:BIO. Wolfchild 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --YUL89YYZ 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per many previous AfD discussions. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge, like we have been doing with all other otherwise non-notable unsucessful candidates. Luigizanasi 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Contents have been moved. Ohconfucius 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embrace the End

Seems to be non-notable, all links cited are self-created and/or promotional. Article claims a tour, but I can't find any reliable sources that reported this per WP:BAND, nor are any cited. Recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- hmm, tempted to say a brutal delete, however, from my reckoning they pass WP:BAND for the two albums on Abacus. Although, as you say, there is way too much self-promo in it and it depends whether anyone (fans out there?) would be willing to work on it (and maintain). I'm not so sure. At the moment, consider me a soft n' gentle keep. Bubba hot ep 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Paradoxically, Allmusic has an entry for the band and one of its albums, but not a biography. That hardly ever happens. I still don't know. Bubba hot ep 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm going out on a limb here. I am a big fan of hardcore/metal as my user page will attest. Just so I can't be accused of bias - if I work on this page (and I mean wikify) and that of the other band mentioned in it (First Blood) - I don't mean to the standard of my articles on Ensign and Killing Time... but, if I work on it, would you consider withdrawing the AfD for now? I have found out it is only one album on Abacus, but they are more notable than most of the backstreet bands I speedy ten times a day? Thoughts? Bubba hot ep 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment-are there any listings in reliable sources about them, even maybe some sort of "underground scene" magazine or the like? Wouldn't have to be Rolling Stone or something, but it would be great to see something used besides the band page. Seraphimblade 02:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- Obviously, this page needs some work, but with 17,500 MySpace friends and two albums on Abacus, this band ain't chump change. Chubbles1212 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Notability is established in the article, they have an album release on Abacus Recordings, there are many reviews out there on metal sites and magazines. Ben W Bell talk 08:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I think the work myself and Chubbles have done to it at least brings it to Wiki standard. The reason I stuck my neck out on this one (I had neither heard them, nor heard of them before this) is that there is stack loads of verifiability from sources which are acceptable to a certain degree in this genre because they don't exactly get coverage in mainstream internet press. I hope this is enough to keep the article. Bubba hot ep 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I was the one who started this page, and I never put any promotion for the band. Also, how are the links "self-created"? The links include the band's website and their label's site. Old tour information is hard to come by, but I believe some is listed on their website [40]. The Metro

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisiharrison.net

Delete. Vanity, and even the first edit has a bit about it being 'interesting, and quite fun'. --SonicChao 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Fan article about a non-notable website. DCEdwards1966 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Caknuck 01:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:WEB, probably qualifies as {{db-web}}. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Its an advert scope_creep 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Nicolet

Contested prod. Non notable, fails WP:BIO. 51 distinct Google hits.[41] No external reviews of his accomplishments, no WP:V sources beyond columns and blogs apparently. Also WP:COI concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2006

Delete — Non-notable personal bio. Borders on being a vanity article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and delete non-notable autobiography. Clear conflict of interest. Ohconfucius 06:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- kind of embarrassing self-promotion. Not notable. --A. B. 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Play Records

No evidence this is a notable record label. No verification, no sources. Chick Bowen 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

14 blue links on the "artist" list (to 16 red links). Seems like enough to me. Keep. Ac@osr 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, although there are 14 blue link, Door, Fossil, Newton and Unicorn are links to non band sites. Of the ten left, half do not mention the label. Of the five left, most are released as small run vanity. Nuttah68 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Just running down the roster, AIDS Wolf, Supersuckers, Burden Brothers, and Kevin Drumm are quite notable. Needs work but worth keeping. Chubbles1212 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment, of the bands you list how many are signed to the label? The Supersuckers article, which has a full discography, does not even mention the label. Nuttah68 07:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It looks like this is a label that specializes in pressing limited- and special-edition 7-inches and EPs. The Supersuckers album is probably not a major release. I couldn't find mention of it on allmusic or on their website; I flagged them with a citation needed in the entry. (Update: it's a split 7" with the Burden Brothers; it's mentioned on the Burden Brothers's wiki entry. I then removed the cit needed.) In other news, I found out that the link to Unicorn should actually link to The Unicorns, another notable band who released a split 7-inch on the label. (Update: I again speak too soon...the Unicorns 7" was apparently pressed but never released...but it's mentioned on the Wiki entry for The Unicorns.) Chubbles1212 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Chubbles1212. --Oakshade 03:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Redirect set to AEON Group. ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeon Group

Spam? Vanity? No third party sources? Something from all. Please delete, 2nd choice merge to Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. --20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Aeon Group (yoga) is the identical spelling as AEON Group (Japan). This AfD concerns Aeon Group (yoga) only, but please consider any ramifications.--Endroit 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails to assert notability. if genuine sources were added which asserted notability, then it should be merged with main article. scope_creep
Delete and Redirect to AEON Group. If the contents here are not notable enough to be included in the Yoga article, it should be just deleted. However, the AEON Group in Japan (which is totally different) IS notable, hence the redirect.--Endroit 17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an international yoga organization significant in the world of Supramental Yoga which is represented on Wikipedia (Sri Aurobindo, the Mother). Some Comparison Pages: Auroconf, Ridhwan School, 3HO. These pages seem in no way more significant than Aeon Group. I have edited it some. Suggestions on making it more acceptable without removal would be appreciated - saberlotus.

Delete Fails to assert notability. --A. B. 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep only as a Redirect to AEON Group, the Japanese company or group of companies. The yoga group completely fails notability, and the group of articles dealing with the non-notable yoga group and its leader is further discussed at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination). It should be noted that someone has already tackled the necessary task of reverting the article to its state before the yoga information was added. OfficeGirl 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeon Center for Cosmology

Spam? Vanity? No third party sources? Something from all. Please delete, 2nd choice merge to Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. --Pjacobi 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails to assert notability. if genuine sources were added which asserted notability, then it should be merged with main article. scope_creep

There are plenty of Organizations, Schools Centers, Ashrams and such that are included on Wikipedia. Aeon Center for Cosmology is of no less significance than any of those. A good comparison pages is Ridhwan School (the School of an author, A.H. Almaas) ... Aeon Center is the school of author Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. Why is including it here it considered spam? If things need to be changed to make it more suitable, fine, request that, but the Center exists and is a significant school of cosmology.

Delete per nom, appears to be part of a walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft. Sandstein 06:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails to assert notability. --A. B. 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE This article is one of a series of unsupported articles on non-notable subjects all in an apparent attempt to boost the credibility of one non-notable author. See the following:
- - Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
  - The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2
  - The New Way, Volume 3
  - The Gnostic Circle
  - The Magical Carousel
  - Gnostic circle
  - The New Way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way)
  - Trivikrama
  - Matrimandir Action Committee (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrimandir Action Committee)
  - Aeon Group (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Group)

Before today I don't think I have ever used the term "CRUFT" before in an AfD discussion, but now I must say: CRUFT! CRUFT! CRUFT! Sandstein's term is apt-- "a walled garden of cruft." What a tremendous amount of work for mere vanity articles that have no place in Wikipedia!!OfficeGirl 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My feelings exactly (although with somewhat fewer exclamation marks). Once the present AfDs are over, I'll draw up a mass AfD for the rest of this cruft-fest. Sandstein 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about all the exclamation marks. I guess I was taken aback by the extent of the articles created in this scheme. I went ahead and made a mass AfD for the rest of these here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination) before I read your note. It is listed as a 2nd nomination because there was also a Category created for this author and someone tried to use the AfD process to delete the category. OfficeGirl 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for taking the trouble, and don't worry about the !s... they are a sadly unappreciated character on Wikipedia. :-) Sandstein 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete It has 32 google hits, no good. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrimandir Action Committee

Spam? Vanity? No third party sources? Something from all. Please delete, 2nd choice merge to Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. --Pjacobi 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails to assert notability. scope_creep

Delete Fails to assert notability. --A. B. 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

STRONG DELETE This article is one of a series of unsupported articles on non-notable subjects all in an apparent attempt to boost the credibility of one non-notable author. See the following:
- - Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
  - The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2
  - The New Way, Volume 3
  - The Gnostic Circle
  - The Magical Carousel
  - Gnostic circle
  - The New Way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way)
  - Trivikrama
  - Aeon Center for Cosmology (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Center for Cosmology)
  - Aeon Group (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Group)

I don't think I have ever used the term "CRUFT" before in an AfD discussion, but now I must say: CRUFT! CRUFT! CRUFT! What a tremendous amount of work for mere vanity articles that have no place in Wikipedia!! OfficeGirl 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about all the exclamation marks. I guess I was taken aback by the extent of the articles created in this scheme. I went ahead and made a mass AfD for the rest of these here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination). It is listed as a 2nd nomination because there was also a Category created for this author and someone tried to use the AfD process to delete the category.OfficeGirl 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete for failing WP:V (a geological feature that does not leave a trace of its existence?) In any case, as with any verifiability deletion, the article can be recreated if sources are found. Get in touch with me if you want the edit history. Re Herostratus's comment: we also use "Notability" when we really mean "Notedness". ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poldberg

Contested prod: reason was WP:NOT for genealogy, which was remedied by adding the geographical feature (the hill near Aalborg). However, among the 261 distinct Google hits for Poldberg[42], none of them mentions Alborg or Aalborg[43], making this for the moment an article that fails WP:V, as well as still being for the most part a genealogical entry. Fram 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, based mostly on the geographical entry. Although it does fail WP:V, it's probably true, and could be verified from non-internet sources... I can see why there might not be anything on an obscure Danish hill on the web. As the genealogy, I don't know the exact policy on this, but I think that a description of a surname ought to be at least marginally OK. We should have (if we don't already) articles on the origin of Smith and Campbell etc. without really getting into genealogy, which (I guess) is more about the descent of indivual persons and all that. Now, Poldberg is a pretty minor surname, and the article does tend to border on just being genealogy, but all in all, with the geographical note and the material on the origin of a surname, I think it should be kept. Herostratus 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: how can something fail WP:V and still be kept? It is up to those wanting to keep something to show that the subject is compatible with the Wikipedia policies: just supposing something is true is not enough. If the creator or anyone else wanting to keep this can't provide us with WP:V sources (which may of course be off-line), then we have no choice but to delete it. This looks to me like the information someone gets from a selfmade genealogical search (whether correct or not), not the kind of thing any reputable third party source will have published. The origin of Smith, Campbell, ... has been discussed in major books and magazines, since it is such a common name: the origin of the name Poldberg, and the assumption that they are all rather closely related, is not very likely to be the subject of such major articles though. Fram 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- I misunderstood WP:V; after looking it up, I see that it means verifiable rather than verified. So as to the hill Poldberg, that is presumably verifiable in large Danish library or at the Alborg city hall, if its true, which I assume it is. The family name Poldberg is different. Whether archives kept in Elkhorn or Kimballton or elsewhere exist, I don't know; but they probably do, I'd guess. Granted, verification would be difficult. Now, none of the material is actually verified by cites, but that can be remedied. We are not talking about the material but the existence of the article itself. Generally, articles shouldn't be deleted just because they are bad articles (unsourced or whatever), but only if the actual subject of the article is not encyclopedic - that is, even if the article is cleaned up and sourced etc. it should still not exist. So I stand by my vote. Herostratus 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:V, which makes all the discussion about the encyclopedicity of the content irelevant. Sandstein 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V, which states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." We shouldn't be keeping articles because there are "probably" sources somewhere that no one has found yet. Better to not have an article on a topic than to have one that contains possibly inaccurate info that has not yet been properly verified. Once someone does find good sources, the article can be recreated at that time. -- Satori Son 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete but not to protect. If the article is re-created with sources then that's fine but having none makes it un-encyclopedic. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martial law (us band)

Contested prod. Lengthy and well written article, but sadly on a non notable band, which fails WP:MUSIC. One single on a very small label, one self-released EP, no other elements that indicate notability per the guideline. Martial law plus Nick viau (one of the four main members) gives only a myspace hit...[44] (Googling for martial law alone obviously gives many many unrelated google hits). Fram 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'm new at making articles for wikipedia, so I'm not really sure where I should post my response. Wikipedia is my favorite site and I use it extensively, for hours every day, just reading, learning, etc. I am a talented writer as well and have written several screenplays, so I decided to try my hand at wikipedia articles. I wrote this article about a band I knew a lot about, and if you could not delete it, I would really appreciate it. I know a lot of people who would appreciate this article's preservation and among those people is a huge group that cares about this band. If for no other reason, please don't delete this article simply because it is my debut article. I know that is an irrational reason, but this article means a lot to me and I hope to become one of wikipedia's valued article editors. I have noticed a lot of poor writing on this site and was using this article to practice for editing some of those articles. I know many people do not know the band Martial Law, and that this article may be a little long for an unknown band, but I assure you that they have had a lot of success and do fall into several of the categories that are required for a notable band. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letitithrash17 (talk • contribs)

Delete as a repost - I deleted this on November 9th as a {{db-band}} candidate, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Completley fails to assert any notability scope_creep 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I think that would fall under WP:NOT a memorial in addition to WP:BAND. ~ trialsanderrors 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Gubby

Delete, Hoax by a blocked user. Completely fails WP:V.--Isotope23 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, yeah, obvious hoax. The three novels with links are by other people. Dooms Day349 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Accurizer 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. User's only contributions were three new articles posted on October 23, all bogus. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just a waste of bandwidth, not even funny. Tubezone 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron J. Gubby

Delete, Hoax by a blocked user. Completely fails WP:V.--Isotope23 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Accurizer 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. User's only contributions were three new articles posted on October 23, all bogus. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just a waste of bandwidth, not even funny. Tubezone 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Malone

Delete, hoax. References in article have nothing to do with subject. Fails WP:V completely.--Isotope23 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Accurizer 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. User's only contributions were three new articles posted on October 23, all bogus. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just a waste of bandwidth, not even funny. Tubezone 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - there are Jim/James Malones out there, as evidenced by Google hits, but not the person in question. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. scope_creep 17:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Sagona

Not many Google search hits, and apparently can't be verified. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I've never heard of him, which doesn't matter, but neither has google, which does.--Anthony.bradbury 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per nom. couldn't verify - and no Google hits. SkierRMH 07:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Appearing on tv, doesn't make an actor notable. scope_creep 17:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, becuase of different spelling I never saw the 2nd nom. which was only 2 months ago -- Coasttocoast 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape gods (third nomination)

This article is complete fancruft about the fictional gods in RuneScape, no one outside of Runescape can possibly find this useful.-- Coasttocoast 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods, second nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (second nomination)

Keep That is not the right link. The last afd is here, 2 months ago. Two months are way too short a gap to start a new afd. J.J.Sagnella 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Your reasoning is faulty, as you're assuming what people may or may not find useful. That is not an established policy. Please make nominations based on some kind of policy, not just what you don't like. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - too short of time between nominations, learn from the mistakes of GNAA. --- RockMFR 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. An AfD after only 2 months, over a keep consensus? Over a "no consensus", that might work, but this seems too much like "Let's nominate it repeatedly until we happen to get a group of people who agree". -Amarkov ^babble 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K.J. on Campus

Reason Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This putative show is not set to release until 2008 and isn't yet even in production. Self-promotional. Delete. —Brim 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Eyrian 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chubbles1212 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:Not#CBall, looks like ad. SkierRMH 07:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. scope_creep 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Bogsat 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge all to Timothy Goes to School. Yomangani ^talk 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs Jenkins

In this deletion proposal, I'm bundling together:

All are non-notable, with less than a thousand Google hits apiece. Additionally, they're orphaned inside Wikipedia, and even the main article Timothy Goes to School appears to be relatively non-notable inside Wikipedia.

The other orphaned Timothy Goes to School articles are one-paragraph episode summaries -- I think it's appropriate to merge them into the main article and redirect. However, others may wish to add them to the deletion-bundle. Sanguinity 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the main article, which is mostly a character list at the moment anyway. Definintely notable series due to Rosemary Wells. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think this is AfD-worthy, just be bold and redirect until there's something to be said about the characters. ~ trialsanderrors 23:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and Merge into Timothy Goes to School, better located there. SkierRMH 07:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Merge into the main article. Single characters like this, don't need a seperate page. scope_creep 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a {{hoax}} non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Burton

Hoax biography. Delete —Brim 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete nonsense. Example sentence: "She enjoys hunting ogres and designing landscapes for shanty towns in Buenos Aires.". Seems like a vague attempt to be funny but they forgot to include any funny parts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, shouldn't have an article as it is. Hello32020 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD G1 as per Starblind. --tgheretford (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and userfy on request. Despite the keep comments (ignoring the double by Durin's Bane (talk · contribs)), the reasoned objections and the lack of uncontested sourcing make it clear that the article as is fails WP:V, which is a consensus-overriding policy. Per the participants that think the subject might merit an article, editing can continue in userspace until verifiability issues are addressed. I'll let all the participants here know if that should happen. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain giants

This article is almost entirely original research. The information that can actually be extracted from The Hobbit can be given in one or two sentences. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

KeepI don't believe this is original research. Who ever the author is, they did a good job in rembering the sections of giants in the Simillarion and Unfinished Tales. I read down farther between a discussion of the author and the guy above me and yes there is a book that Tolkien originally wrote called Guide to Middle Earth. The only thing wrong with this page is the name, it should be Stone Giants not Mountain Giants. Anyways, this page should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durin's Bane (talk • contribs) [45] Don't think you're fooling anyone.

I didn't write that, my friend did, and if I wanted to fool you, you would not see it coming, even if I told you.

In that case, who did your friend think he was fooling? "Who ever the author is" indeed! But next time you might want to have him log in as himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

He is like that, I told him of my problem with you and he said he would help and I had no idea what he wrote. Sometimes he is weird, now see the cited source, yes, ohh, ahhh yes, it is true it is there. I did what you want now do what I want, take the Deletion off!

Keep and clean up. We have articles for other of Tolkiens creatures, so mountain giants seems a valid article too. Jcuk 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's about a Tolkien creature, but that practically nothing in it has anything to do with what Tolkien wrote. He mentions them exactly once, and all he says is that they were large and were throwing rocks at each other. Nothing else in the article is from Tolkien. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom unless authoritative(i.e. from Tolkein, not video games or fan fiction or comics or movies or whatever) sources for further detail can be found Bwithh 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and leave the same. Hey, I created this page and I studied for months and worked hard to get it done. I am Durin's Bane and I found all of this information from the internet, in tolkiens personal writings, from the Hobbit, Simillarion, Lord of the Rings, Unfinished tales and much more. I worked hard on this and it should not be deleted. Most of my information came from Tolkien's Guide to Middle Earth, it is a book that describes every living thing or race or character. He mentioned them much more than once, and it cannot be put all into two sentences, mainly because of the fact that nothing in Tolkien's world could be described in two sentences. Like I was saying in the section of stone giants it specificly states what I have written. The information came from what Bilbo had written in The Red Book of Westmarch. This is all accurate and correct. Even the information of the giants in the Battle for Middle Earth 2 game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durin's Bane (talk • contribs)

Unless you found it in something written by Tolkien, you can't just say it as if he invented it that way. He never wrote a "Guide to Middle Earth". If you found anything about "mountain giants" in The Silmarillion you were seeing things. I recall nothing about them in Unfinished Tales. He mentioned them once or twice in Letters as anomalies that don't fit well into the rest of his mythology, IIRC. And in any event, I believe he called them by no other name than "stone giants"; "mountain giants" must come from somewhere else. I would guess that and everything else here was either made up by the author of the Guide, or is from some game or other. Either way, you should say so and provide references. Do that and I'll ask for this AfD to be withdrawn. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Its a definite keep. Needs some work to tidy the article. scope_creep 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What are YOU talking about. Tolkien did write giants in the Similarion he wrote them possibly being the ones who created Helm's Deep. And yes he did write a Guide to Middle Earth book. It was edited by his son, I have the book. I don't know how to site sources but I'll try, and if this is demolished I will write it all again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.18.70 (talk • contribs)

The bit about Helm's Deep was mentioned as a legend and not a fact. It was actually built by the Númenoreans early in Gondor's history. Even in Middle-earth, not all legendary creatures necessarily exist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But these do!

Strong Delete this is almost entirely original research and much longer than the entry in the only cited source. Notability is also a concern since they have such minor apperences in Tolkien's works. Unlike Hobbits say, I'd argue that these creatures don't deserve an article of their own, even if it's cleaned up and properly sourced. Eluchil404 11:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep the new, sourced version and welcome folks from Mr. Rosi-Kessel's blog! We're not really that evil, we just like to give newbies a scare... ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Dickinson Street Co-op

Heavily contested Speedy deletion. Yanksox 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Weak delete~~ The only sources I could find on this (after my DRV vote...) was A) The Princeton webpage and B) The Princeton student newspaper. Not convinced this really meets inclusion standards, despite claims, but they should at least get their 5 days to improve the article. I'll check back. --W.marsh 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep/Merge. Sourcing seems better now, my main concern has been addressed. --W.marsh 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement. +sj + 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete Fails WP:N, WP:V. It should be noted that on User_talk:Eagle_101 the editor of the article hs refused to give even just one reliable source of the article to assert it's verifiability and notability. That alone should speak volumes for the article's worth. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep passes WP:V now but I'm still not sure if it's really notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

- Please don't bite the newbie. I think this is just lack of understanding, and therefore lack of preparation, not a refusal. The Daily Princetonian is, actually, reasonably independent of the administration and has a subscribership beyond campus, so it more nearly analogous to the hometown paper reporting on some local establishment than to a house organ. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  
  Wizardry_Dragon, this really wasn't an appropriate speedy. +sj +

He had plenty of opportunity to provide sources on User_talk:Eagle_101. He refused to do so after several requests. As for not WP:BITE it was I that suggested DRV and gave him plenty of outs in a civil manner. THere is no WP:BITE here. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only imagine how bewildering it must be to have one's first article speedy deleted. It probably seems arbitrary and unfair, even though it was neither. Also, I just don't see how one can say someone "refused" to provide a source that probably does not exist. I don't suggest we keep the article, just that we try harder than normal to avoid sounding accusatory. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I did feel bitten. I was trying to argue the process -- whether there should be a speedy deletion or an actual debate and some time to cite reliable sources but my impression was the response was that there could be no debate. Ajkessel | Talk 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's why I suggested WP:DRV - that's the forum for that kind of debate, not a talk page. In either event, don't confuse User:Eagle_101's discourse with my own. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise! wow. you know, i helped clean up a couple articles a few times about a year ago and enjoyed the process (anonymously). i figured i'd make an account this time, but this process makes me sad.Aaron.michels 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right on. This is at a minimum not a speedy. Please help clean up the article if you can. +sj + 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete (edit conflict) I see little evidence of notability via google. The fact that every other eating club seems to have an article in Wikipedia is interesting; I have not examined those pages for independent sources of information about each club, but I don't see a source for this one. Thus I think there needs to be more verifiable information, and notability established. --TeaDrinker 23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing to Weak keep or Merge per the added citations and discussion. --TeaDrinker 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete (edit conflict) Until I see a reliable source. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. (multiple edit conflict) No source cited asserts importance beyond the university community. If the author wants, no objection to userfying. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Eating clubs (Princeton University)#Alternatives. Accurizer 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changing to keep per notability established in article. Accurizer 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think merging might be a reasonable compromise if there is not sufficient basis for maintaining as a separate article. I added that alternatives section in question.Ajkessel | Talk 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only if there are reliable sources will I agree with this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self published sources in articles about themselves. Mere mention of the existence of alternatives strikes me as uncontroversial and sourcable from the website. I would agree that more would be doubtful. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Being admitedly new to this process, I was wondering if completeness is a valid argument for inclusion. Wikipedia deciding to represent only the eating clubs could be seen as lopsided. individual articles may be neutrally written, but the content as a whole may not be neutral.Aaron.michels 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is specifically not a criteria for inclusion, precisely because the other articles you mention are can be nominated for deletion at any time, and because two wrongs don't make a right. The argument is derisively called the "Pokemon argument" because editors often note that there is a complete set of articles on every last Pokemon card (and a community of devotees that won't let them be deleted), so why not an article on (insert name of topic)? The answer to articles that shouldn't exist is not more articles that shouldn't exist. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment My *vote* to merge was based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability#Notability as a reason for merging, i.e., WP:N contemplates whether a subject is noteworthy of having an article itself, not necessarily whether it is appropriate for mentioning in an article. I accept the Princeton University website as a verifiable source. I hope this helps to clarify my approach. Accurizer 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks for being clear, Robert. I now understand this argument. Which makes me think, "Gee, You must have this problem a lot." From a new user's perspective, you learn what is appropraite on Wikipedia by looking at what is currently on Wikipedia, not by looking at what would be in an encyclopedia on my shelf. In this case it seemed to be safe territory for a new article, as it appeared to be an ommision among articles on parallel organizations. Apologies for stepping on toes. Aaron.michels 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I don't see any bruised toes, nor any need for you to apologize. I hope you understand better and will further contribute to Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or alternatively merge. I originally added the article because leaving out discussion of the student coops misrepresents an important aspect of Princeton University. Eating clubs have been called Princeton's "Peculiar Institution" (see, e.g. The Rule of Four, Page 88), and in the late 1970's student activism, including an occupation of the administration building, led to the creation of 2D as an alternative. Most of the sources currently cited in the article are from The Daily Princetonian, which, as you will note from the Wikipedia article, has a circulation of approximately 8,000 and a budget of $400,000, which indicates that it is distributed well beyond the campus community (in addition to online readers). One of the other references, Princeton Alumni Weekly, has a circulation of 65,000 source. Certainly many niche Wikipedia articles cite sources with comparable distribution that are considered WP:RS -- note both publications are independent and meet the definition of secondary source (and in fact have been used for historical scholarship). 2D has also been featured in a best-selling novel and is included in other books on Princeton, and is at least mentioned in passing in a New York Times article. 2D was also the subject of at least two anthropology studies/papers, although I'm not sure how to find the citations for them. It will take a little time to build out the article and provide proper sources, but I believe it is already better sourced at least than most of the articles about the Eating clubs. I don't think the "Pokemon argument" argument applies here, as Eating clubs and the cooperative alternative are probably the most important indicators of the socioeconomic dynamics of Princeton University, which itself I think we can all agree is quite notable.Ajkessel | Talk 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge It asserts notability, fairly well writtem and has decent sources. scope_creep 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep for reasons identified above. Wikipedia is not paper. dml 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I agree with the above arguments. It seems that the article as been well cited to show that 2D is a valid institution worthy of note. Ajkessel mentions history, culture, and media articles large and small... why sensor a well-written article on a documented institution? User:Dalachin

Keep The article could use some refinement but there seems to be mroe than enough raw material to merit an article. The strong opposition to this seems so out-of-proportion that I wonder what's going on behind-the-scenes... -- Jon Dowland 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what, if anything, is going on behind-the-scenes, but it may be related to my slightly off-procedure attempt to challenge multiple speedy deletions. (Not due to malicious intent, I think I may just not have followed the right sequence for contesting a speedy deletion.)Ajkessel | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Part of a nation-wide student cooperative movement, which deserves more articles, including this one Dylan Thurston 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - honestly, it's a no-brainer. Well-written, cites sources, and an interesting read. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. toresbe 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I've done my best to clean the article up. There are a couple more places where citations are needed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to finish off. I would assert that it now passes both WP:N and WP:V. Tim 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Smerge into Princeton University. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as above. wikipedia is not paper, and the article has improved greatly since this discussion began. Aaron.michels 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article gives relevant and useful information. I enjoyed reading it. Catherine.Archibald

Strong Keep. If the all of the other eating options at Princeton get to have articles, this really should too. The previous speedy seems very inappropriate. -- mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep This article has now developed into an informative, viable, corroborated piece. It contributes directly to developing a fuller understanding of Princetonʻs econonomic and social climate, as well as describing a unique part of its history and culture. Deletion seems moot at this point. And for the record, the speedy did seem quite inappropriate. ifny 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above commenters. It is both notable and interesting enough in my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 22:31, 14 November 2006

Keep adding my $0.02. Having read Mr. Rosi-Kessel's blog entry, I was alarmed at the incredible speed and insensitivity with which some folks with administrative privileges on the wikipedia.org site were willing to just throw away a newbie editor's attempt at contribution to this compendium of knowledge. WordNet says that an encyclopedia is "a reference work ... containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty." I do not know all the ins and outs of wikipedia notability requirements, but this article indeed seems notable enough to me (at least in its current incarnation). I would love to learn more history of this co-op. --Furchild 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Benjamin Mako Hill Tedernst | talk 03:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hernan Prada

Not notable Jvhertum 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick delete, person not notable, places noted in article also not notable. SkierRMH 07:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete This should have been on speedy delete. Complete crap vanity piece. scope_creep 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete-non-notable. Nothing is provided to verify the article. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't expect every haridresser to be Vidal Sassoon, but I don't see anything very notable here. --Oakshade 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Fok?!? ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huo (surname)

Article has little context on the notability of the surname itself, and mostly consists of links to others of encyclopedic merit who have the surname without providing any explanation of what their surname had to do with it. BlueSquadronRaven 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia has plenty of articles about names, and the article can certainly be improved by adding sources and expansion, but I see nothing prompting deletion. --TeaDrinker 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, but this should probably become a disambiguation page for people with that name (or Fok, apparently, which just proves that I'll never understand the way the Chinese languages/dialects work), rather than being an article on the surname itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Good example of a start of an article on a surname. Fg2 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page; agree with BigHaz, this should be altered into a disambiguation page, would be much more useful tool there! 07:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs)

Keep I agree with TeaDrinker. scope_creep 17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Surnames are quite important, especially in Asian cultures. There are many other articles of this type around Wikipedia, and they serve to help describe the origins of the name, among other things. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - see this article [46] for what this could develop into given some time. novacatz 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Half-Life mods

Indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a repository. Punkmorten 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Listcruft. TJ Spyke 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, violates WP:NOT. - Tutmosis 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hard to believe people took that much time to create the list in the first place. Chubbles1212 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Quick Delete per nom. Liscruft (and a waste of time). SkierRMH 07:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless list (BTW from the title, I was expecting some mention of Keith Moon there). --Folantin 14:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Moreschi 15:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. The corresponding list for Half-Life 2 was nominated a few months ago and the result was a unanimous keep. Although this article is of lower quality than the Half-Life 2 article, it should not be deleted. --- RockMFR 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per RockMFR, seeing as we have an exemplary List of Half-Life 2 mods page as well. We should try to bring this list up to the same standard, otherwise it isn't providing anything above and beyond what categories can do. Yamaguchi先生 22:54, 14 November 2006
Keep per Yamaguchi VegaDark 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Whispering 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a repository of external links, which this is unlike the HalfLife 2 article. Userfy if someone wants to turn it into an acceptable article rather than a directory. ~ trialsanderrors 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - I think the concensus indicates your "delete with no objection to a later re-creation if [you] become more well-known" is probably right. There is question of original research too - hardly any of the article can be verified from the external links. Yomangani ^talk 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Dignan

Oookay... this is a really tricky one. I am James Dignan, and though I have no objection to having an article on WP, I really don't think I'm quite notable enough for one. I had this as a subpage of my user-page, as much as anything as an "example article" (and it is still there), but someone noticed that several articles had my name as a redlink and decided to copy it over to article space.

Trying to look at it objectively, there are several claims of notability here, and I certainly get loads of google hits and - as I mentioned - there are about ten links from other articles to this page. But there are also some significantly trivial aspects to a lot of the article. But I don't know... the best solution I could come up with was to lay it all out in an afd and see what the consensus is. My gut feeling is either "trim thoroughly" or "delete with no objection to a later re-creation if I become more well-known", and keeping the "userfied" version as is. Consider this more a procedural no vote than as a yay or nay. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, seems sufficiently notable, although at the lower end of the scale. Doesn't need much trimming, in my opinion.-gadfium 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep article shows that he has done enough to warrant an article if verified. EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database does verify some of the material in the article. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- It does? Wow... I can probably provide some independently published verification for several of the things mentioned if needed. Certainly there should be enough web sources to verify the radio station and Otago Daily Times information. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Should stay in user space for now. Sorry, but I don't see any solid claims to encyclopedic notability here. Clearly a valuable part of the New Zealand cultural scene, but nothing so far merits encyclopedic inclusion on the basis of this article. When the book that's being written is published and is proclaimed by reliable sources to be significant, the case will be stronger. I applaud the modesty of the nominator - in contrast, there are many artists/perfomers/writers around his level who are unabashed about writing up their own articles for Wikipedia Bwithh 03:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Weakish keep (i.e. stronger than weak but weaker than regular) This is a case where I'm not sure that any individual achievement listed in the article would necessarily confer sufficient notability, but I feel that everything stacked together does assert enough significance so as to warrant an article. -- Kicking222 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, sorry. I go over the various items in article and at each stage I can think of people I know who would have similar levels of claims to fame but wouldn't justify an article either. Spread a little too thin perhaps. - SimonLyall 09:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete As I don't see evidence of meeting the WP:BIO standard from multiple coverage by independent sources. GRBerry 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, they could easily be found. At least two of the four external links qualify as independent sources. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete All-around cool guy and should therefore be added to the Pantheon of Cool Wikipedians, but it seems the redlinks were mostly about your flag design work, and I would say the threshold for notability is simply having a design accepted as an official flag. It doesn't look like this has happened yet, but I wish you luck. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Montgomerie

Just a blogger. All the external links link to his friends' blogs. Delete.

Also, 82.35.73.41 had this description:

The reason is that the person is just a blogger and is not notable enough. If you look at the article all the sources about him are on his or his friends blogs. --SonicChao 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment 82.35.73.41 has been banned for vandalism. JASpencer
Looking at the log, ISP (which is a BT Internet one and shared with many home users in the UK) was blocked temporarily - block having expired - not banned. --SandyDancer 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - page appears to be self-promotion. I (shamefully) avidly follow politics in the UK and have never heard of this guy. Maybe his time will come one day. --SandyDancer 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why then did you perform a major edit on this article, followed a number of edits? In the edits you claimed that "Montgomerie appointed himself the first full-time Director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship" and that he "as appointed as research assistant" to IDS. They both may be true (although the second does not agree with the CCF press release - but that may be wrong) but it doesn't square with someone who's "never heard of this guy". JASpencer 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, be civil and assume good faith. Do you have a personal interest here?

I made those edits because I came across the page via 18 Doughty Street and saw it was a puff piece. I therefore edited it based on a more realistic, less spun reading of the limited sources. Standard practice on wikipedia chum. --SandyDancer 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Never met Montgomerie, and am not particularly hot on the Tories these days either. Pointing out that a comment is untrue (edits on 7 Nov, "never heard of him" on 10/11)is not a personal attack, but a fact. And it's assume good faith, not practice it even when the contrary has been shown as, in the discrepancy between the edit history and your original comment. JASpencer 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - A two sentence blurb in a newspaper article doesn't assert enough notability for inclusion. Caknuck 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails to assert any notability scope_creep 17:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Conservative Home is one of the more succesful UK blogs, and has attracted a number of MPs, etc. Also founder of Conservative Christian Fellowship, first director and Political Secretary of the Conservative Leader. "Just a blogger" is an inaccurate description. JASpencer 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've never accused someone directly of a bad faith nomination before, but I think that this counts. A very quick Google search came up with mentions in the FT, BBC, New York Times, Sunday Herald and New Statesman. Also bylined articles in the Independent (1) and The Guardian (3). Why was Google not searched first? JASpencer 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, article may need work but plenty of sources are cited. Seraphimblade 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per SandyDancer. Redirect to Tim Montgomery, the sprinter, if deleted. SliceNYC 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As if Wikipedia were not America-centric enough. Google shows 49,400 hits for "Tim Montgomerie" Conservative and 38 for "Tim Montgomerie" sprint. JASpencer 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with America-centrism, just a potentially common misspelling. SliceNYC 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per SandyDancer. After performing a Google search, out of the hits prior to the WP article, the top was the CCF itself, followed by numerous blogs (not sure what JAS was thinking of, but commentisfree.guardian.co.uk is a blog), one article linked here notably with a misspelling, and one commentary/editorial on The Independent. The following page are all bloggers' responsa to him, or mentioning him. Per the articles he has written, Montgomerie has no real notability except through the CCF, and yet no one knows exactly what it is he did as director. Therefore, I would have to come to the conclusion that while the CCF seems notable, Montgomerie's notability is not asserted. MSJapan 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Was that the Google search that came up with 60,700 hits? So the first nine have a number of blogs, the lesson being that blogs tend to be over-represented on Google. Have you actually looked at the article which shows articles in the BBC, New York Times, Weekly Standard, Guardian, Observer, Sunday Herald and Financial Times? Yes they don't come up on the first page of Google, but looking a bit further, or even looking at the article, will show that he's quoted on a number of times. I'm tired of the "haven't heard of him" school of deletion. Wikipedia should have a place for the influential backroom types as well as MPs. JASpencer 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment surely lots of the 60,700 hits would be for other people called Tim Montgomerie? I am sure there are hundreds of them in the world. And some refs would be misspellings of the more famous athlete's similar name. Just as you may be sick of people nominating for deletion because they hadn't heard of the person (admittedly a weak argument), I think quoting the number of hits on google doesn't work, particularly if the subject of the article is a person with a relatively standard name. --SandyDancer 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the comment. I said that MSJapan had relied on the first two pages of the Google search, and that with 60,700 hits there was likely to be more information. My point is that you can't talk about sources if you don't look at the article and at the time he put in his comment the article had citations from a large number of news sources (admittedly there are more now). JASpencer 11:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I agree that Google hits should not be a definitive measure of notability (for or against), I certainly think the source cites within the article qualify as non-trivial mentions from multiple reliable sources. Seraphimblade 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It really begins to look like you have a personal bee in your bonnet about this. What's the story? Come on share it with the rest of us ;-). These deletion debates can be very amusing. --SandyDancer 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment SandyDancer, I -am- a deletionist and I voted keep here. Citations are made in the article through, among other publications, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and multiple mentions on the BBC. My idea of the notability guidelines is that they are intended as an extension of the verifiability guidelines, in that a non-notable subject will also tend to be unverifiable. However, in this case, the subject is both notable and verifiable, and clearly passes the WP:BIO requirement of multiple secondary source mentions. Please also do remember to be civil and assume good faith. Seraphimblade 10:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm not the one with a problem about civility and assuming good faith around here...--SandyDancer 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do believe I've been uncivil, please let me know why and I'll take your concerns under consideration. However, comments such as you made to JASpencer are neither civil nor assumption of good faith, being a pure guess regarding another user's thoughts and motives. Please comment and attempt to rebut what he said, don't make accusations of bias without cause or evidence. Seraphimblade 10:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you had not assumed good faith, rather that JASpencer hadn't. Please read the full discussion before commenting. --SandyDancer 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, and in fact addressed both possibilities as I was unclear on which you meant. Seraphimblade 11:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Tim Montgomerie is notable for his work at 18 Doughty Street TV, as a blogger at Conservative Home, and as the Conservative Christian Fellowship's founder and leading figure. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Notable and verifiable and as per User:JASpencer. Billions 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Although his name may not be well known to the public, I think his work is sufficiently notable to justify an article about him. Plus, it is well-sourced and verifiable. DWaterson 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supervert

Delete. Subject of article doesn't seem to be that notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Has very little pages linking to it and no categories. CyberGhostface 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

BLAM! gives this the feel of rather involved astroturfing. Delete. --humblefool ® 00:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote this (but not the BLAM! entry). I don't know what "astroturfing" means but it sounds like you're implying that this is spam. I'm a fan of this dude's work and of "transgressional" literature in general. If you look at my past contributions you'll see that this is the sort of thing I've tended to contribute. I started the article on David Britton, for example. These guys may not have the renown of Hemingway or Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean there aren't people interested. I'd hate to see this get deleted but, hey, I guess that's what Wikipedia is about: the will of the masses. (And maybe that's why guys like Britton and Supervert are "transgressional" -- the masses don't like 'em.) Don't delete. Crawlspace 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable, intentional mysteriousness - "possibly also a trademark or brand name" - either it is, or it isn't. Books that have achieved "cult standing" don't necessarily deserve their own article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - self-promo cruft, extremely NN. Pete Fenelon 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W cloud

The article is on an obscure designation for an extragalactic structure. The term is not commonly used in either the professional or amateur astronomy community. The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the SIMBAD Astronomical Database contain no information on a "W Cloud". A search with the ADS Abstract Service only turns up 5 articles (of which 4 are refereed scientific articles) that use the term "W Cloud" in the sense that it is used in the Wikipedia article. The "W cloud" simply lacks notability, and the article should be deleted. George J. Bendo 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed. If the nominator means that there is no such structure as is identified in this article, then delete. If what is meant is that another name for the structure is much more common, then redirect to that name. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Such a structure appears to exist, although the identification of large scale structure in the direction of the Virgo Cluster is difficult (for example, see what is written for the Sombrero Galaxy and the NGC 4631 Group). The major problem is notability, even within the professional astronomy community. The NED and SIMBAD resources above list informaton on almost all extragalactic objects, but this thing is so non-notable that it is not catalogued in their databases. If professional astronomers do not think that the W cloud is notable, then it certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. A redirect also does not seem like a logical solution, as I cannot think of where to redirect a search for a "W cloud". (I honestly think that it is more likely that someone searching for "W cloud" is looking for a George W. Bush political cartoon.) George J. Bendo 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. If it is not in SIMBAD, I don't see how it can be notable. --Nebular110 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. --Fournax 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless sources can be provided showing that this is notable. HEL 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, without prejudice against creating an actual article on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desairology

dict def of a topic that has few Google hits Lars T. 23:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand or delete doesn't seem all that notable. Phyesalis 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Expand with sources and additional content but its notable in the fact this technique is used across the world in daily basis. scope_creep 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Currently the veriest definition of a dictionary definition, but has potential as an expandable article. Vafthrudnir 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The article hasn't changed (apart from wikification) in almost 18 months, and checking Google again I found (as one of the few articles not related to the article itself): [47]

Charest-Papagno … has gone so far as to coin terms—"cosmecare" and "desairology" (from the words "deceased" and "hair")—to describe the brave new worlds she has been carving out since she first published her Handbook of Desairology for Cosmetologists Servicing Funeral Homes in 1980.

Other hits are about that book only. I'll add "non notable" and "original research" to the reasons for deletion.Lars T. 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - or at best move it to Wikitionary. Pete Fenelon 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless someone actually expands article before AfD closes; otherwise, this is a dicdef. --A. B. 06:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exophilia

Delete. I really don't know how legit this is, although I'm not doubting that this actually exists somewhere. Pretty bizarre, no sources, little pages linking to it. Not really notable for an encyclopedia. CyberGhostface 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I don't remember writing this. It's unsourced and seems to overlap with neophilia. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I hate aliens.--Perceive 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It seems that this term was created by the book in the references, and looks like it was intended as an advert for the book/term. I only found it on Google in relation to that book or people using Wikipedia as a reference. 'Alien fetish' gets other hits though... this seems to be what places selling such things call it. The article topic may have some merit if someone found enough info on it, but it doesn't seem to be called exophillia in general usage. Polenth 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLAM!

Delete. Little categories and links from other pages. Not much information. Doesn't seem notable for an encyclopedia. CyberGhostface 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Its clearly a hoax article. scope_creep 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, talk to User:Kitch because he's effectively the only contributor. Google search returns [48] and [49], so it might not be a hoax. The article seems to be a copyvio of #2. Nihiltres 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "rulers of evil"

[edit] Grouse Lodge

[edit] Hyperfur

[edit] List of allusions to the word "fuck"

[edit] List of Happy Tree Friends Deaths

[edit] Tapestries MUCK

[edit] Patricia L. Michelle

[edit] Albedo Anthropomorphics

[edit] Brickey Elementary

[edit] Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film

[edit] Ram Mudambi

[edit] D-Trash Records

[edit] Ponderosa Elementary School

[edit] Ayesha Sana

[edit] The Phoeron

[edit] Funny Bunnies

[edit] Steffan Browning

[edit] Miesiac

[edit] March Hare Software

[edit] Ryan Rosenberg

[edit] Ec10

[edit] Radisson Riverfront Hotel Windsor

[edit] Mike the Headless Chicken

[edit] RuneScape economy

[edit] Alex Charak

[edit] Rane Helms

[edit] New Life Community Church

[edit] Haunted hay ride

[edit] Apeist

[edit] Furcadia

[edit] Labyrinth - A novel about the Software Industry

[edit] Apoorva Joshi

[edit] Diana Irey

[edit] Benjamin McNevis

[edit] List of viruses from Mega Man Battle Network

[edit] Ashley Jordan

[edit] List of British words not widely used in the United States

[edit] Hula Popper

[edit] Darren hart

[edit] Xlibris

[edit] Regenium-xy

[edit] VIVE PRO for Men

[edit] Brian Hardin

[edit] Isabella V

[edit] Universal Powerline Association

[edit] Wii Startup Disc

[edit] Elizabeth Austin

[edit] Technomimicry

[edit] Zygii

[edit] Zyx

[edit] Angry hands

[edit] Not safe for work

[edit] Echo Band and Amro El Meligy

[edit] Ursa Major Awards

[edit] Furry Pirates

[edit] Vitsoe

[edit] Muns

[edit] Ceramide-R

[edit] United States Presidential trivia

[edit] Abhishek Choudhary and related articles

[edit] Fuzzball MUCK

[edit] Mustafa Ali

[edit] Oleg Kolesnikov

[edit] Saibaba nagar

[edit] Finally Punk

[edit] Furtopia.org

[edit] James Thomas Lee

[edit] Sudan Liberal Party

[edit] Adil Abdel Aati

[edit] The Troubles in Tynan

[edit] Adil Zamani

[edit] Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar

[edit] Vote on article Spanish Gibraltarians

[edit] Athol Deakin

[edit] Mike Callaghan

[edit] Mancation

[edit] Martin Randall Travel