Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. NawlinWiki 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Franklin Coverup

One paragraph article about a non-notable conspiracy theory book. Something about satanist child-abusing politicians in Nebraska. The book gets 13,000 google hits, of which about 260 are unique. [1], Amazon rank is about 31,500, worldcat has it in 127 libraries out of 10,000. Google scholar has nine citations, none of them seem significant. [2] I can't find any mainstream reviews or press coverage that would speak to notability. GabrielF 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge, no reason this has to have an article separate from the Franklin Coverup Scandal.--Rosicrucian 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• merge likely search term Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone's personal crusade. NN. Tbeatty 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and controversial book which will definitely be expanded if given time. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Silence for another AFD that failed in a very similar and notable controversial film, banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
• Merge Don't see any reason for separate article at the moment Bwithh 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Franklin Coverup Scandal. It's not a particularly notable book, but it appears to have some signficance in the whole Franklin/King/satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory. The Conspiracy of Silence, Lawrence King, and Paul A. Bonacci articles should be merged in there as well. --MCB 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Straight Delete as the work fails WP:BK. The Franklin Credit Union and Senator John DeCamp's sexual abuse allegations are just not notable today. Why is a throughly discredited set of allegations and the persons involved suddenly the "hot topic" in blogdom and notable-enough to warrant 6 separate articles? It's not. Nobody in the mainstream press is still talking about this issue. That makes the subject non-notable in an encyclopedia that requires reference to reliable secondary sources, not blogs. Where are the references to this book in reputable sources? This story is dead, dead, dead, and has been since 1989. Morton devonshire 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal Brimba 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see no basis for deletion at all. Note that WP:BK is not a guideline; it's a proposal that does not have consensus. Derex 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton Devonshire and the fact that Wikipedia is not Barnes and Nobles, we do not need summaries of every book, hence it failing WP:BK. Author isnt notable, and the book didnt win any prestigious awards or break records or sell particularly well. --NuclearZer0 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable book. --SunStar Net 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For non-notability , the fact that the whole mess is covered in other articles, and that, frankly, as Tbetty said, it reads like someone's personal crusade -- --and we ain't no soapbox. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable book, per Morton. Wearing my anti-Satanic ritual heavy-gauge tinfoil turkey roaster hat. Edison 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect a likely search term, all relevant info already included in Franklin Coverup Scandal -- Martinp23 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, fails WP:BK. - Crockspot 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, see WP:BK#Criteria, the book is notable in its own right and satisfies at least a few of these criteria, having been reviewed by multiple noteworthy sources and being developed into a motion picture documentary that was then banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

  The documentary Joe is referring to is Conspiracy of Silence, which was never aired on TV or released on video. It does not fulfill criterion 2 of WP:BK, which states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres." If you have noteworthy reviews, by all means provide links. GabrielF 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Also, it is not at all clear that the documentary is "adapted with attribution" from the book, or merely covers the same set of alleged events. --MCB 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Franklin Coverup Scandal. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable book. Redirect as logical search term. JChap2007 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AfD details. Drahcir^{my talk} 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable book, don't see any reason for it to have an article here. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Fails all points of WP:BK. The worst part is that the book is written using an "alleged child sexual abuse ring organized for members of the political and financial elites of the United States". There are real people and families out there who are affected by this sort of stuff (believe it or not). JungleCat talk/contrib 02:58, 3 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 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Freedom Caucus

Non-notable political activist group. No mentions in searches of major media sources. They seem to get talked about a little in blogs, but seem to not have any actual influence or mainstream recognition. Andrew Levine 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. wtfunkymonkey 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pcbene 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of natability cited. I found no mention of them in an online source of 4,000 publications. Google shows blogs. They do not claim to have elected officials from their group, or even to have put candidates on the ballot. Note: at List of political parties in the United States there are over 50 parties which have doubtful claim to articles, and which deserve consideration for AfD as well. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for a non-notable political parties, however noble their aims or admirable their principles. To be notable, Democratic Freedom Caucus might wish to at least field a slate of candidates, so as to get some input into Democratic platforms, and to get coverage by mainstream news media. Their other-than-mainstream principles include informing juries of their right to jury nullification, and a belief that taxes on real estate are less odious than taxes on personal property and income. Get mainstream news coverage and they can be right up there with the Prohibition party. Edison 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In my mind, a group with some good ideas, but has not achieved any notability outside of the blogosphere. JGardner 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google News returns no hits for the term in quotes and the closest thing I could find to a reliable source was a comment on Daily Kos. JChap2007 00:27, 3 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. No-one has actually expressed an opinion that this article should be deleted, not even the nominator. The nominator wants the article merged. This is Articles for deletion. Don't come here unless having an administrator hit a delete button is what you want. Article merger does not involve deletion or administrator tools at any stage. Uncle G 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrupted Blood

WP:NN. Should be merged into World of Warcraft. By the standard of this article, every event in the game would be an article. Has very few references. Many articles have been deleted for much less. --Fandyllic 4:29 PM PST 1 Nov 2006

• Weak keep. Studies by universities and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been conducted on the psychological effect of Corrupted Blood on World of Warcraft players, so scientest could research on what might happen if an epidemic happened in the real world. [3]--TBCΦtalk? 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This event actually got some significant media attention, including NPR and the BBC News. That's in the article. And those are just two MSM outlets that covered it, there was plenty more focused coverage from sources in the industry. If anything in WoW qualifies as a seperate article, this is it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Could use some more information, personally I'd like to see more information about the real world similarities over the in-game event itself. wtfunkymonkey 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - significant third-party coverage of this specific aspect. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep here are some of the examples of media coverage:BBC, The Register, Ars Technica. I am not aware of any other WOW event that had this type of coverage so keeping this does not mean we need to keep every event. I also believe that this clearly meets WP:NN. --70.48.108.24 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per no actual argument for deletion offered by nom. As it is, this is a notable video game event that got significant real world attention. Also, this is the 2nd AfD for this article, as the previous AfD in May resulted in an overwhelming keep. Resolute 05:29, 2 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. Nishkid64 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patton Creek Shopping Center

Shopping centers/malls are generally not notable, nothing in the article states why this particular shopping center is notable Justinmeister 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Millions of shopping centers exist in the world, and this is no more notable than any other.--TBCΦtalk? 01:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I found some references, which is usually possible for most large shopping centers. This one is big (600,000 square feet), so it's more notable than most. There are probably a lot more references in sources that aren't available for free online, such as trade publications and back issues of newspapers. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per TBC wtfunkymonkey 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just another mall. Not especially large compared with List_of_largest_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States. Smallest shopping mall in the US top 20 in 2004 was 1.9 million square feet according to that list - i.e. you could fit 3 Patton Creeks into it and still have 100,000 square feet left over . Bwithh 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, nothing special about. Not particularly large or anything else. JoshuaZ 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per apparent consensus. Stammer 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't help the closing administrator to just add a "pile-on vote". It helps the closing administrator to provide a proper rationale for why this article should be kept or deleted. You can start by looking at the references added to the article by TruthbringerToronto and discussing whether they are enough to satisfy WP:CORP. Uncle G 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As others have pointed out and as the references you have added confirm, this is just a mall. Stammer 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Still lacks multiple nontrivial coverage in mainstream media. And when they say "in the Birmingham suburb of Hoover" without saying what state, that smacks of "local interest only" and sounds like a press release for local papers. Edison 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:CORP doesn't require that the sources be mainstream media, only that they be reliable. The missing state name is a valid point. I have added the state and country to the first paragraph of the article. Could you please take another look at the article and evaluate the current version? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Note that reliability is not the only criteria that allows the inclusion of an article, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. The types of things that it applies to are listed, and this is not one of them. The relevant section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is "Wikipedia is not a directory" (of businesses). For ensuring that we have the WP:CORP criteria, which work very successfully when applied. As WP:CORP encourages editors to do, please address what published works have been cited, and whether they are of sufficient depth and provenance to satisfy the criteria. Uncle G 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. I live in Alabama and I have actually been to the Patton Creek Shopping Center. There's nothing that sets it apart from the shopping centers in Birmingham, Alabama, much less shopping centers in general. The only reason someone would be looking for information on this place would be to find a restaurant or movie times. It's a brand new place. It hasn't had time to have any significant impact on the community or the State of Alabama to warrant inclusion in an enyclopedia. If it had been the site of riots and protests or an infamous killing spree by disgruntled store clerks--- that would be different. All that happens there is that people buy books, clothes and gifts and then eat out afterwards. Nice place, but I assure you it is not notable. OfficeGirl 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see two references in the article. One is from the local chamber-of-commerce about one of its members (and thus not independent) the other is about the mall's "architectural concrete masonry" from the Alabama trade organization that the company that did the masonry work belongs to. So even if the article were to be rewritten about the architectural concrete masonry of this particular mall (and I really cannot see that), it still wouldn't have two independent sources. Moreover, this is just a normal mall with the normal stores functioning in a normal way, so there's nothing particularly notable about it. JChap2007 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think both sources are independent of the shopping centre. It's not as if they were reprinting a press release. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The sources exist because it is the job of chambers-of-commerce/trade associations to promote their members. They're not reprinting press releases, they're generating them. JChap2007 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable mall, though there are sources cited, but they are neither independent nor reliable. Wait for a while and sees whether this mall becomes more notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. One argument against the claim that all malls are the same is the vigorous competition between real estate developers for the combination of attributes that will bring in tenants and shoppers, which means that mals try hard to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and the fact that malls sometimes go out of business (see http://www.deadmalls.com for more). So here are some questions that I would ask about any mall. Is it a transit hub, with a bus terminal part of the mall, or is it hostile to transit users? Do the mall's security personnel have a reputation for bullying or racism? Have their been documented incidents of these behaviors? What is crime like in and around the mall? Was there a controversy about building the mall, perhaps because the land was originally zoned for other purposes? Have the mall's owners made substantial contributions to local politicians? Many of these questions can only be answered with access to the local newspaper's archives, which makes it difficult to put together an article from thousands of kilometers away. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And restaurants try hard to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Heck so do gas stations. While I agree that the above questions about malls are interesting, they hardly make the malls notable. JoshuaZ 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As I don't believe in rampant deletion of articles and that there should be a good reason for an articles deletion, I agree that the perhaps obscure location might hinder the locating of independant sources (at least on the internet) that might indicate the uniqueness of the mall. It might be an idea to ask users from the Alabama area (such as the original creator of the article, User:Bucs2004) if they could shed some light on some local sources. Justinmeister 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As Requested: I don't believe in the rampant deletion of articles, but I don't believe in having articles that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria, either. I promise, promise, promise you that the local sources in Alabama do not treat Patton Creek Shopping Center any differently from any other mall in the Birmingham area. In fact there are a handful of identical malls that were built in the Birmingham area recently, including Patton Creek, and they're regular, everyday, ordinary malls. It's just not a big deal, escpecially now that it's built. It's a nice place, just like a lot of other nice places. Not notable-- not even to Alabamians. OfficeGirl 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The "ACIA - ConcreteWorks" link has the look and feel of a press release, especially based on the last paragraph. The Chamber of Commerce page is a little better, but doesn't leave me believing that this business meets WP:CORP. GRBerry 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very notable project. The shopping center is part of a major revitalization of the area which includes a number of shopping areas, restaurants and public areas. The center required major reworking of surrounding highways, including the first "flyover" in the area, which was named the Birmingham Business Journal's New Construction Project of the Year. [4]. Patton Creek exists in the shadow of the Galleria, Alabama's top non-paying tourist attraction, bringing in 14 million people a year. The construction also raised issues relating to the government's right to imminent domain when private land was taken to built highway on/off ramps. This article should be rewritten to note its notability, not deleted because it is poorly written. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:33, 4 November 2006 _(UTC)
  • Comment As an attorney in Alabama who has actually been to the Patton Creek Shopping Center I can tell you that the events surrounding the construction of this place, including the legal history, were (YAAAWWWWN) uninteresting and ultimately unnotable. The thing that's notable is the Riverchase Galleria, and Patton Creek is just one of many shopping centers that have been built in the area. The "flyover" is marked as the "Galleria" when you use the exit off of the highway (not "Patton Creek"). It is, as you say, merely in the shadow of the Galleria. It is, as you say, merely part of an economic expansion. Being the next-door neighbor to the Galleria is not an assertion of notability. The Birmingham Business Journal is a minor publication that exists primarily as a propaganda tool for major business interests in the area. There's no hard-hitting neutral journalism to be found there, and besides that your argument would suggest that every year a new article should appear in Wikipedia depending on which new construction is the best thing currently happening in Birmingham, Alabama. Patton Creek belongs in a directory, not an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some content could be merged into a list of "lifestyle centers" in Alabama or major shopping centers in the Birmingham metro, or even into the Riverchase Galleria article - but there's no need for a separate article here. (That's why I started Bhamwiki.com) --Dystopos 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing sets this mall apart from hundreds of others. NawlinWiki 05:53, 7 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 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFur

WikiFur was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-21. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur.

WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006

• Keep. What statements in the article cannot be verified? We've tried to keep it to the facts wherever possible. The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is. Only two of them are to WikiFur itself, though, and one of those is an announcement that could also have been referenced to the Wikipedia edit, or to a LiveJournal post. I thought it best to make a page for it on WikiFur where it could be given in context with later posts. Wikis aren't always great secondary references, but I don't see a problem with it being a primary one for itself. This article was deleted once, and rightly so, because it was badly written and the site was one month old. I think things have improved now. GreenReaper 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not Memory Alpha, but it's not that far off either: Wikia by edits (as "furry") GreenReaper 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is." This statement makes judging this site's notability easier. Andrew Levine 02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  That's true of most wikis. The documents concerning their foundation and policy are hosted on their websites and related websites. The best place to go for information about Wikipedia is Wikipedia - an article which happens to have large numbers of references to meta-wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, and even to itself. It also happens to be the most comprehensive coverage of its topic. It's the same for WikiFur. I could link directly to LiveJournals where significant members of the subject area have said what they thought about WikiFur, but why not just point to the wiki page where they are already referenecd and tied together into an article? GreenReaper 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia has been covered in almost every major media source in the world. That establishes its notability well. A notable subject needs more than just a single short mention in a free weekly in Pittsburgh. Andrew Levine 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: Comparing Wikifur to Wikipedia in terms of media coverage is unfair. Wikipedia is a large, general purpose encyclopedia aimed at the general public, wikifur is not. A by-the-word interpretation of WP:WEB does not refer at all to size or distribution of the third-party source, only that it be well-known. The fact that this non-furry third-party source chose to directly quote from wikifur and redistribute its content is an example of wikifur's notability and a demonstration of it's usefulness outside the fandom. -- DeVandalizer 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't the one who originated the Wikipedia comparison. And if we allowed every fan website that was mentioned once in a local paper, we'd have to expand our definition of notable to allow thousands of fansites more. Andrew Levine 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GreenReaper. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it's no worse than Divehi Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, WOWWiki in the great scheme of things. Some differences, none important enough to matter for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems WoWiki got deleted already. Seems a bit hasty to me, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Many articles were deleted for less" is not a valid reason to delete a page. Resolute 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but I still don't see how it is notable, I prod'ed it but in fact I had suggestions from some other administrators to speedy delete it under WP:CSD#A7 and redirect to Wikia, and I don't think this would be far off. I see no need to include every Wikia wiki here, even if it started off as an alternative to publishing Furry pages on Wikipedia itself. (And of course it does not satisfy WP:WEB).--Konst.able^Talk 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  The section that mentions furry topics on Wikipedia is just intended as a explanation, not a claim to notability. (Though perhaps it's notable for being most vandalized as a direct result of its content? It was bad enough that eventually a special extension was made. :-) GreenReaper 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  And in reply to your statement: My belief is that material that is verifiable and does not contain any NPOV violations should have a place on Wikipedia. Using other people's reports (notability) is a way to try to achieve some assurance of that, but it seems like it's just a shortcut for Wikipedians doing the fact-checking themselves, and that when it is easy to do then they should do it. I can understand that when it's a complicated question of law or science which is hard for laymen to understand (which is why there is NOR, to avoid that uncertainty), but I don't really see the application to this particular article, which makes reasonable, referenced assertions about the mission and history of a wiki that has existed and operated for over a year, and which is well-known within its sphere. GreenReaper 06:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage by reliable published sources per WP:WEB. Sandstein 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB or WP:V. No non-trivial coverage. Wickethewok 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination). Havok (T/C/c) 09:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What exactly does the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) have to do with discussion? I fail to see the relevance, other than the fact that the article was for a wiki about a particular fandom. Also, I'm curious as to why you'd vote for deletion on an article with similar scope as the article you fought to keep. Do you believe that because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) came out in favor of deletion for that particular fan-based wiki that it means that no fan-based wiki can ever be on wikipedia? Please expand your reasoning. -- DeVandalizer 10:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I feel that Wikipedia has spoken about fan wikis, and that a simple list would suffice for all of them. WoWWiki was simply the AfD that got me to rethink my stance on the whole subject. Havok (T/C/c) 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • See my comment on your Wookieepedia nomination regarding this.--Konst.able^Talk 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Wikipedia doesn't take a blanket position on wikis, they are considered based on notability per WP:WEB. Also, trying to get other pages deleted after a page you supported got deleted can be seen as retaliation and a violation of WP:POINT. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One mention in a local paper is not sufficient mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Also, it is annoying when they do not define in the article what the hell they are talking about. The article has a click link to a dictionary definition article Furry fandom which is unencyclopedic as well. Edison 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't find a lot of the reasons cited for deletion here to be that compelling. Just because the wiki isn't covered in Time magazine doesn't make it non-notable; I realize major media coverage makes a handy shortcut to deciding what deserves space, but it shouldn't be used as a crutch either. The article should be improved, rather than deleted before it has the chance to get better, as I can't think of any serious reason it can't be made better or more referenced. --ToyDragon
• Delete per WP:WEB or WP:V. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Levine, Sandstein, Wickethewok, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc. --WillyWonty 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Why it fails WP:WEB. It's sources are Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimania wiki, a something awful forum post, and the only media reference here is not about Wikifur, but about furries and only mentions Wikifur as a reference. It is basically no more a source than this reference to a different wiki and that wiki article got deleted. I've seen articles full of sources and even gotten on television by MSNBC and they've been deleted. Basically one vague mention in a newspaper article doesn't cut it for most articles and I see hundreds deleted each month with similar sources and they all just aren't notable enough. DyslexicEditor 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Hate the topic, but that doesn't change that this is a decent article on the subject. Unfocused 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not entirely convinced it's notable, but having an article in a printed newspaper acknowledging it as a "Wikipedia-like" source for its particular niche is a step up from many articles as far as WP:RS goes, and the article itself is well cited. Shimeru 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to a full keep... seems like a noteworthy wiki, especially for one devoted to a niche topic. Also am beginning to suspect that some of the delete voting is driven either by that topic, or by previous AfDs for other "fan wikis." Shimeru 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Eh... it's one of the most notable wikis in Wikia, and appears to have had media/wiki community exposure that's not entirely trivial. There's no major problems in the article that would warrant much controversy. While it's not exactly a household word it probably barely passes WP:WEB in my opinion. At very least this is xlink-worthy material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It fails all points of WP:WEB and there is no significant coverage meeting WP:INDY to think that we should override the WP:WEB guideline. There is no evidencce that the content of WikiFur has multiple independent coverage. The UrsaMajor award is not well known, and it is an award from the fans of furrys so it may not even be independent as the WikiFur editors are also fans of furries. There is no evidence that the content is redistributed by an independent site. As all criteria of WP:WEB are not met, an article on it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. GRBerry 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever I wanted to say, has honestly been said, so. I don't see why it should be deleted. Disinclination 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep ... but needs a complete rewrite; present article talks about irrelevant aspects of the site (non-notability on wiki, edit wars). _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the second paragraph, starting "Like Wookieepedia,"? The objective there was to give some context for its foundation, to answer the question "why does this website exist?" I think this is something that needs to be answered, and those are the reasons I had in mind, but there's probably a better way to put it - I'd welcome any edits, or suggestions on how to improve that section. GreenReaper 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable; doesn't really pass WP:WEB. Voretus^talk 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way this is notable. WIth reference to article number: I've seen articles where the info is taken from a new user's userpage, so it's no wonder the articles are as numerous as they are. Take out all the Category:People articles and you have far fewer than other wikis that were deleted for notability reasons. Also a depressingly low number of google hits. Apparently it's a favorite at Wikia:Wikia, but that doesn't make it notable. Seems very self-referencing of the "wiki universe" section of the internets, someone with no knowledge of Wikia and Wikipedia would not care. By the way, I only have like 20 edits, lol. Miltopia 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  There are around 2100 articles in Category:People. I do not know how many of these articles would be included in the conservative count - some are, of course, stubs, while others are highly trafficked, linked and/or featured - but I'd say around 4/5 of them, or ~1700. This is not surprising given that the chief part of a community is its people. But why would anyone want to take them out? WikiFur is not Wikipedia - it is intended (in part) as a public directory of members of the furry fandom, and it is used as such by many, who find it convenient to get a summary of facts, accomplishments, and links to further information. We do encourage users to develop public articles about themselves if they are in the fandom, because in this case much of the information that would normally go on user pages is relevant to the topic of the wiki. It is often the topic that new users have the most knowledge about to hand, so they can make a quick contribution, plus it gets them used to having their writing edited. GreenReaper 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm just saying as far as measuring WikiFur's notability by article number isn't accurate because most of those articles are written about people who, frankly, don't matter in a global encyclopedic sense any more than I do. So, number of articles probably shouldn't be used to offset the low google results, since the articles are not at all about significant people. Like, it's not like these are essential articles to be knowledgeable about the furry fandom, and many are autobiographical. This is compared to ED (might as well get that out of the way), which, while not a good article candidate in itself in my opinion, has information about famous internet people that you just can't find anywhere else, thus making it a more notable source of its purpose in comparison to WikiFur. I think the very low traffic kind of speaks for itself. I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard not to like insult your wiki and am not expressing myself well and probably insulting it anyway, but I'm doing my best here. Miltopia 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    That's fine, but the only person who's brought up measuring notability by article number (twice) is you. We all know anyone can make a wiki with lots of articles, usually by importing them. The link I pasted above was in reference to editors, as I see community involvement as a big factor in wiki notability. In that sense, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "very low traffic". WikiFur certainly don't get a billion hits a week - more like 120,000 - but then the furry fandom does not have a billion people in it. We're happy with our figures, as they make for a high-traffic site within its domain (especially considering we're not giving out porn :-). I would argue that this, plus the ability to verify the facts in the article from the given references (which I don't think anyone has disputed), is sufficient reason to keep it.
    ED is a discussion apart from this AfD. While I agree with Wikipedia's link policy, I think it should probably have an article. GreenReaper 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no notability beyond the fur fandom/internet -- wispywolfox 70.36.88.64 23:02, 8 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 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideomanifestationalism

Unsourced WP:OR (which the talk page even admits), zero ghits for the term. Prod and prod2 removed. Jamoche 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Non-notable, unverified neologism . Seems to be original research as well.--TBCΦtalk? 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• This article shouldnt be deleted. If you can come with a logical reason why this does not make sense or cannot work, then you can delete it, and yes this has been created, its not something that has been around for thousands of years, but its a philosophy. You people are like the people who have Socrates killed because they didn't like his philosophy and Socrates was the father of Western philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.102.237 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment. You might be interested in such core content philosophies as verifiability and no original research -- while research is undeniably a good thing, Wikipedia generally is not the place for that. Luna Santin 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for Original thought. -- Fan-1967 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and BJAODN the horrible comparison between deleting a neologism and killing Socrates. Resolute 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is exactly the sort of thing that the people who killed Socrates would have said. Wavy G 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'd call this OR but "research" just doesn't stretch that far. "Since God exists in both reality and non-reality" .... and oh god, that diagram is funny. Opabinia regalis 07:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can remember coming up with stuff like this in college, sitting with friends late at night after a few too many, and a little too much reading in Philosophy 1. Fan-1967 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deletrufteoriginologism Danny Lilithborne 08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Philosphy student's attempt to come up with a (rather ridiculous) term, which is basically Dualism (philosophy of mind), but sillier ("the need for milk, an abstract concept"--that line alone almost makes me want to vote keep). Give him an A for creative writing and an F in Philosophy. Wavy G 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is going to sound harsh, but I cannot find a single paragraph that makes sense in there. Find something else to do the next time you're high. JChap2007 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Either complete hoax or non-notable neologism/new idea. Whatever it is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at this point.UberCryxic 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Drahcir^{my talk} 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at the risk of piling on. This is clearly original research, with a neologism, and a possible hoax. It's an obvious delete, in my mind. --TheOtherBob 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original research -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW speedy delete. There are no WP:RS for this, and there probably never will be. I don't think there can be any serious debate about that. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:59, 6 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 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild beasts

Disputed prod. Non-notable band. -- RHaworth 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hasn't been mentioned in any non-trvial, notable sources and only 4 relevant Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable wtfunkymonkey 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication taht it meets WP:MUSIC. T REX_speak 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another garage band. Elomis 02:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to Wildlife. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to Wildlife, as per Starblind, an excellent idea. Fails WP:MUSIC and I couldn't find anything on it. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. JChap2007 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Could you please all let me know how I could make this page not suitable for deletion? could I add references to it for music reviews? This band aren't just another band. They have been signed by a record label (bad sneakers records), but only in August. Would it be permisable to include neutral online reviews as part of the page to eradicate this problem? The most notible review of the band is to be published on 22 November in the NME magazine. In the meantime please read reviews; Whisperin and Hollerin, Sound SXP and search wild beasts at sandman magazine.ryanpostlethwaite 19:14, 4 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 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sociology Behind the Diagnostic Model of Mental Illness

Nomination: I came across this because it was in the category of pages needing their neutrality checked. My evaluation is that the page appeared to be biased because it is a personal essay (albeit a short, formatted, and wikified one), which violates Section 1.3.3 of the WP:NOT policy. Furthermore, I have concerns that the essay is violating the "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" provision of WP:NOR, although the article may not be presenting a synthesis of the arguments advanced in the two books listed as "sources" and may instead simply be a case of presenting unchanged arguments from the books without attributing them correctly. Nonetheless, I think this entry is an essay and on that ground alone ought to be deleted. The Literate Engineer 01:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Judging from the original content (which has hardly been changed since its creation, albeit now with different format), the article seems to violate both the WP:NOR and WP:POV policies. --TBCΦtalk? 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per TBC. Stammer 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - jlao ⁰⁴ 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- danntm ^T _C 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. JChap2007 00:48, 3 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 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoriandustrial

This is obviously SPAM by the person that created the Emilie Autumn article. FACT50 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that is true. If you ignore the fact that it is a perfectly valid music genre, and that a different person created the Emilie Autumn article. Strong keep, bordering on speedy, since I'm not entirely sure this is a good faith nom. -Amarkov ^babble 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Doesn't seem to be spam to me, but it needs lots of work.
• Delete - This seems like a music genre with a grand total of one performer in it (or one performer who actually calls their music by this name, there may be others making similar music). Google tends to throw the genre up only in relation to Emilie Autumn, which says to me that it's not a sufficiently notable genre of music to have an article as yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to Amarkov's comment, being a "perfectly valid music genre" does not always make a subject notable, especially if the genre is not well known. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --TBCΦtalk? 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that now. Still annoyed by the claim that the author was someone who he was not. -Amarkov ^babble 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another genre that is being more widely used to refer to this type of music, and under a broader range of sub-genres than just Goth/Industrial. It is called Sepiachord. The only reason I have not created a stub, or even mentioned it on wikipedia at all as of yet, is because it is approximately two months old. Even though it is quickly being recognized as a reputable term by various performers creating old world inspired music. So if this new genre which isn't quite validated yet doesn't have an article, I see no reason why a solo artist who has made up a new spin on a previous genre has any notability. Btw - if you look at the user who created the Victoriandustrial page, it is Batteredrose. A reference to a website hosting EA's lyrics. This is obviously a fan made page to try and sell EA's music to others. Many bands are doing this these days. The Dresden Dolls are notorious for using their fanbase to advertise for them. Though at least they do it in a civilized manner. --FACT50 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - minor musical genres are a dime a dozen (heavy metal bands seem particularly prone to creating their own), and there's no evidence that anyone besides Emilie Autumn uses this term. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable term made up in band practice one day. Eusebeus 14:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Emilie Autumn. I couldn't find another artist in this "genre." JChap2007 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emilie Autumn. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 9 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, Speedy Keep. Nishkid64 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James F. Jones

Likely fails WP:BIO. No sources. Hardly any notability to justify inclusion. Húsönd 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and not notable enough. Hello32020 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pcbene 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep President of two fairly well-known colleges. The New York Times and campus newspaper have done articles about him. JChap2007 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The NY Times reference is inacessible to non-subscribers, content cannot be evaluated. The campus paper I wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source.--Húsönd 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Even the free preview of that NY Times article shows he's the main subject of it and it also confirms the main assertation of him being the president of those two universities. --Oakshade 06:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Being available on the internet has never been a prerequisite for being a source. Also, let me be more specific and note that it's a student newspaper and these are generally free of control by (and frequently critical of) the institution's administration. JChap2007 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is not a prerequisite but if I cannot verify then I cannot confirm as well. As for the student paper, I do agree that they're usually independent, but as local, NN publications I wouldn't consider them as valid to assert notability.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your requirement that the source itself and not merely the subject be notable is something I've never heard of. In addition WP:BIO does not exclude local newspapers from the list of sources that can be used to establish notability. Indeed the vast majority of daily newspapers are local. WP:V requires only that the source be verifiable, not that it be verifiable sitting at your computer. JChap2007 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the other hand, WP:V does make clear references to the usage of sources of dubious reliability.--Húsönd 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm guessing your verifiability concerns relate to the fact that one of the sources is a student newspaper rather than that you cannot access the NYT article online. Whether student newspapers are reliable is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Ones at good schools are probably reliable concerning topics that you don't exactly have to be Woodward and Bernstein to report on. JChap2007 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I find that being the president of the prestigious Trinity College (one of the Little Ivies) very notable. Is really no sources the issue? Is proof needed that he really is the college president? Here - [5] - (inserted into article). --Oakshade 06:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not convinced. While it's good that you provided an extra source for the article, I am reluctant to accept that being the president of the college asserts notability per se. College presidents come and go, I would rather prefer to see some of his achievements documented in an easily accessible, third party source.--Húsönd 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment He's not notable because "presidents come and go"?? Well, that's a POV disagreement. Besides, he was president of Kalamazoo College for 8 years, not a "come and go" tenure. And that he's the primary subject of a NY Times article shows notability from a reliable source. --Oakshade 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment That is not what I meant with "presidents come and go". What I meant is that there's thousands of people who are and have been presidents of colleges, and notability should be asserted beyond that simple fact. Unless third-party sources document his notable achievements while president, I cannot deem this person as notable enough to justify an encyclopedic article about him.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's your POV. I think alot of people think that being the president of a prestigious college (actually 2 in this case) is a notablie acheivement in itself (the NY Times thought so) and easily worthy of an encyclopedic article. --Oakshade 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The two colleges listed are fairly notable, and the president of them seems notable to me, as well. I agree with the comments of the above two votes. However, I think the article could use some clean-up; he's not notable for the skunk-killing adventures of his dogs. --TheOtherBob 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The person isn't notable. The college is. --SandyDancer 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The NYTimes article is one source for notability. The college newspapers are reliable sources for the article, but not for a claim of notability, because college newspapers always cover the seniormost administrators from time to time. Having only one independent coverage is not sufficient to establish notability to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep More notable than the average college professor. Pivotal role in Kalamazoo College history; emerging as pivotal role at Trinity. His dogs' relationship to skunks really is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't relevant.K95 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable as president of two well-known colleges. NawlinWiki 05:59, 7 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 - inclusion of other articles isn't a basis for arguing for the inclusion of this one, and the consensus is that this company doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Yomangani^talk 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad-Up

Incomplete nomination. This article was nominated and deleted on October 28th and then recreated on October 31st. . The original nominator (the 2nd nomination) only posted the AfD on the article page so no reason was given, but it appears the article still has the same problems from the first AfD. Scottmsg 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I was the one who nominated this (incorrectly), I believe it is straight up advertising and is almost identical to the last article of the same name that was deleted for being advertising. -- Librarianofages 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Declined. Please address the works cited in the article and explain in detail how they fail to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 13:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see what it is that makes this article blatant advertising. Some of the facts aren't verified through the sources (like reasons for Ad-Up surviving the dot-com bust), but they can be either verified or removed. The last AFD got deletion based on the nom, "Article asserts notability but has had an unreferenced tag since August 2006. I can find no sources to backup the claim. Smells like linkspam." Without being look at the previous version of the page, I can't tell wether this is similar content to the deleted page; but considering there's a few sources that give it mention in the online advertising world, I'm guessing this version is different than its predecessor. I'm leaning toward keep unless someone proves me otherwise. —Mitaphane _talk 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the previous version. It's the same set of references, from the same editor (Chez37 (talk · contribs)). However the in the previous AFD discussion not a single editor who wanted the article deleted actually addressed the references and gave an explanation of how they didn't demonstrate that WP:CORP was satisfied. So personally, I'm inclined not to speedily delete this as a re-creation but to let this discussion run, in the hope that this time around editors will look at the cited works and discuss them, applying the criteria. Uncle G 13:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rewritten article has improved with references but they do little more than verify the company's existence. Notability is still the issue and this clearly fails WP:CORP. — Moondyne 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see updated citations within the article showing how the references apply to important statements regarding Ad-Up's history as one of the first banner ad networks with their own AdServer (see early Yahoo listing), evolving and surviving the Internet crash due to their adoption of the 'virtual office' organizational plan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete - UncleG, who is a THOUROUGHLY meticulous admin , is saying that we need to identify HOW this doesn't meet WP:CORP rather than spamming wikilinks and saying "NN!!"Delete and Protect Page - the guy is thouroughly uncivil even when you try to make a quiet remark on his talk page. He's basically assuming BAD faith, and at this point fails WP:DICK. Eliminate drama. NN web company.--Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 05:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. - cite in the article is nothing more than a press release, not independant coverage.
  • sorry, that's incorrect: ClickZ does not publish press releases; it is an independent industry analysis site which researches and verifies services offered by listed companies. Anyway, the listing is cited as support for Ad-Up's evolution from a simple banner network as well as providing one of the "industry indicies" request by other Wikians herein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  1. - cite and the Entrepreneur cite (first cite) are the same article. The Findarticles link simply is a copy of the Entrepreneur article, which in and of itself is a single mention.
  • OK, removed. The findarticles listing was originally included as backup support for the Entrepreneur listing because their site was occasionally inaccessible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  1. - NASE , the source for the remaining cite, often publicizes it's members.
  • This is a valid publication with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. Even if Ad-Up is an NASE member, it doesn't invalidate the fact that this printed magazine was published in 1998 and offers insight into the company. The relative publicity value is irrelevant, since the point is that the article provides reputable, documented evidence which supports the points in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 4 November 2006 .
• All of the above fall under the exemption in WP:CORP that says "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company" as not being acceptible. It is NOT the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself'. It is NOT 'listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications'. And it certainly is not publically traded. The only thing I can say is that if someone says keep, they need to answer the above and show HOW it does meet WP:CORP. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All of these statements are not applicable. None of the articles are based on press releases. Press release based articles all have similar text, usually with no noted author, and appear in multiple sources all around the same time. None of that is the case with any of these references. The referenced articles all came out at different times, over a span of several years, and are each independantly written with a byline attributed to different authors. Each article is on a different aspect of the industry and noted facts about Ad-Up which are relevant to this article. The Wall Street Journal and Entrepreneur Magazine are NOT trivial publications in any way, and as noted above, NASE Magazine, though not as well known, is multi-page glossy four-color printed publication with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands and is not published by Ad-Up nor is it advertising from the company. New citations for industry ranking indices have been added (see references) as well as re-added because someone else deleted them. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE REFERENCES -- THEY ARE ALL VALID & IMPORTANT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Thank you for addressing the cited works. Uncle G 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • All that being said, it's probably possible to rewrite the article so that it does meet WP:CORP. I'm just a big ol' Deletionist, and spam-ad-cruft and linkspam infuriates me. If the original author was going to expend effort into making the article better, it might be worthy of a rewrite. But as it stands, it needs to go. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that self-admitted a deletionists, with a pre-biased attitude against any stub article that isn't yet fully fleshed out is proof of nothing except that their stuborn opinion continues to be plastered on worthy and important articles. None of that opinion is relevant to the real facts of this issue. Deletionists -- please apply your attitude where it's really needed, on that list of articles below, all of which have no references whatsoever! Or if you are so inclined, find the relevant research and improve on this article. That is what stubs are for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. The article still reads like advertising or a business directory entry; to my mind this is an independent ground for deletion, whether or not sources exist: the article still needs to be rewritten from scratch. The quality of the sources seem highly debatable; two are general puff pieces about banner advertising, in which a member of this firm was one of several similarly situated people interviewed. The third seems to be an entry in a directory of online advertising businesses that specifically does not meet WP:CORP. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it that some Wikians complain there are no references to industry indicies without noticing such references, while others see such references, and complain that these shouldn't be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Again, The Wall Street Journal and Entrepreneur Magazine are NOT trivial publications. That is NOT debateable. The articles are not solely about Ad-Up, so of course other companies and their executives are often quoted within such articles. The subjective opinion label "puff pieces" is also not acurrate, nor revelant -- the point of the cited references is to back up statements in the article, and they clearly do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Sounds more like an ad then an encyclopedia article. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Biased opinion only, not fact. See the references and explain how those are ads.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per sound reasoning of IUB,KUD. JChap2007 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No sound reasoning there -- just deletionist bias against any stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep This article on Ad-Up is being attacked for no legitimate reason, while dozens of other companies (many even in the same type of business) with NO references at all are being completely accepted.

This is a legitimate article about a 10 year old company with relevance to the history of web advertising. Several well-known publications and historical industry references are cited including Entrepreneur magazine, Yahoo, and the online section of the Wall Street Journal.

Many other accepted and uncontested Wikipedia articles about other companies often have even fewer references, yet none these have been questioned at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BidClix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casale_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_Fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicis_Worldwide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_by_the_Seven_Network

Where's all the fuss about those articles? Not a single one of those have ANY references AT ALL!

The referecnes in this Ad-Up article provide the evidence that the company has survived since the early days of the Internet. That in itself is notable. It is also clear Ad-Up has their own AdServing system as early as 1996, which is also important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.14 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2006

Note to closing admin: this editor made his/her 1st edit to Wikipedia on 4 Nov and has only made 4 edits - all to this discussion and to the article. — Moondyne 01:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin & Moondyne who if he was really interested in exposing annonymity would reveal his/her real name and connections with the Internet Advertising & SEO industry. Clearly this user has a bias against Ad-Up for no reason other than it must be a competitor of some company he/she has an interest in. Anyway, what's the difference if I sometimes I take the time to log in as chez37 (my ID) and someimes I don't bother because for a quick entry or edit its not worth the hassle so the ID shows up as my IP address -- surely the powers that be can tell it's the same IP and my account so I'm obviously not trying to hide that fact. And why should it matter when I first logged in under any given IP address. This has absolutely ZERO relevance whatsover to the legitimacy of this article. Get a clue folks. Get on the really truly important issues and real spam, not articles with 8 legitimate citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chez37, for the record I have no involvement in either Ad-Up or any of its competitors or the SEO industry. I had never even heard of the SEO industry until about 2 weeks ago and certainly had never heard of Ad-Up. Rather than make accusations of foul play, you would do well to assume good faith when a number of other editors give reasons that this article does not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. No-one is suggesting the company does not exist - that issue is not being discussed here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must set parameters as to what is relevant content. Hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles get deleted every day for these very reasons. I've had several of my own deleted so I understand that you may be upset. My advice is to chill out and have a read of some Wikipedia policies and essays like Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. I was going to ask you to declare your own association with Ad-Up but that would be rude and none of my business. — Moondyne 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When people have a blatent, even self-admitted bias against any new, small stub article, or just make lame comments "this reads like an ad" which is purely subjective, unsubstaniated, biased opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line, which is this: according to criteria the article need only be the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself' to be admitted. I've already clearly explained that all three (that's multiple) cited publications are legitimate, non-trivial and that they are obviously not from press releases (since the articles are each about several different companies, and each article is about different aspects of the industry, each article is from a different author, and came out at very different times over a period of years. Nor is their source Ad-Up. Quoting an executive of the company within those references doesn't mean the source of the article is the company -- people are quoted all the time by periodical authors who have done their own research. The sources (Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur Magazine, and NASE Magazine all are hard-copy published magazines with circulations above 6 figures, and all have currently active online accessible versions for easy verification. Since several Wikipedians had previously questioned some of the facts, such as the company's start date and corporate status, citations have also being included which reference very well known and respected industry indicies, such as Alexa, ClickZ, Yahoo, and the California Secretary of State. A total of 8 relevant, legitimate and independant sources have been cited for this Ad-Up article, while numerous other articles for other companies in the same industry with NO REFERENCES at all (see the list above) have been admitted and unquestioned for quite a long time, so clearly there is some BAD FAITH going on with the delete-happy attack here -- it is not assumed, it is obvious. 61.7.156.244 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Chez37)

Bad faith? Look, I think we need to all take a clear look at the article again so we can GET ON THE SAME PAGE.

1. The Alexa link is worth zero. It shows that the site has been around a while. That does not make it notable. That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".

The WP:CORP requires the valid articles are listed in industry indicies. Alexa is exactly such an industry indici. You'll note that many new companies, as well as old companies with no current activity are not listed. Therefore, Alexa is a useful, valid, a respectable guide. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ditto for Archive.org. What is this supposed to show? That it survived since 1996? That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".

this is one of 8 references, which ad to the overall coverage showing that the company was established very early in the pioneering days of web advertising (which is in itself notable) and yet has also survived this entire time. Name 10 other web ad companies that can match that description. There are VERY few. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ditto for State of California. Why did you even include these? The question is not "has the company been around a while" but , according to WP:CORP, has anyone noted the company AND has the company DONE anything worth noting.

These citations are included, again, because "industry indicies" are a requirement of WP;CORP -- read it -- it is useful, good info. The State of California is probably the single most reliable and trustworthy source cited. It further establishes that not only was the company started back in July of 1996, but also that it is a California C-Corporation -- NOT a trival LLC, or some small DBA, it is an established, governmentally recognized corporate entity. That alone doesn't make it notable, but it does make it non-trivial. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. With ClickZ, again -- read the actual cite. All it's saying is the exact same thing as the Ad-Up Media Kit . The media kit is available [6]. Odd, the titles and gist of what the media kit says matchs ClickZ pretty closely. As stated above, the ClickZ cite is hardly more than a press release.

All this proves is that ClickZ did good research and verified that the company's services matched what the company indeed offers -- this shows honesty on the part of both parties, not a press release. Note that ClickZ does not provide a phone number or email, or even a contact name -- all things one would expect from a press release quote. But anyway, this citation is provided only to show that Ad-Up had evolved at a point before the Internet crash (1999) in a multi-service agency, rather than a simple banner ad network -- and that, even if it did come from a press release is notable, because it is clearly what made that company survive. This is history folks. Don't deny it. Read it. Understand it. Learn from it.

1. WP:CORP says the company must be the subject of multiple non trivial work whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. Now, the Economist cite, is rather flimsy in that regard. But I'll let it slide, even though it does nothing but quote him, and site some figures. We'll say that is a source. Importantly -- the article is from 1998. EIGHT YEARS AGO. I'll come back to that point in a minute.

Clearly you are not alert nor paying attention at all. There is no 'economist cite' -- perhaps you are too busy reading some different entry while poping oxycotins and writing nonsense.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The WSJ is the infamous furnature quotation. I think people are being unfair on this one. It is actually a good cite, in my opinion. However, it's from 2000.

Please read the entire cited article. It is not about furniture. You kids are missing the whole point. Internet and eBusiness history is built by radical companies that start in strange and different ways. The models of how their businesses succeded are extremely important to the future. If you can only see the furniture in that article, you my poor friend, need to learn to read braile.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My main point, now, is that all of these articles are six to eight years old, before the collapse of the big 'internet' bubble in toto. There is nothing recent. The company hasn't gotten any coverage over what it's done, over it's partnerships, over opening any new markets, or for new technology. Reading the article, one can't see WHY it's notable. Saying 'it is notable because the cites are relevant' is disinginuous becuase they aren't.

To answer your question: Ad-Up is notable because of at least four reasons: 1) Ad-Up started very early in the web ad business 2) Ad-Up developed its own propreitary AdServer (at a time when Doubleclick was likely it's only competitor) 3) They evolved in advance of the Internet bubble by expanding their services 4) They have survived over 10 years and continue to operate in the present day despite litterally thousands of other similar companies having come and gone.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What you need is 3 things. You need at least one source from independant media saying something the company has done, and you need to add cites and sources about what they've done. The article claims that the company has bought up and absorbed several other companies -- cites for those?

Those things are not what makes it notable, those are merely facts of interest.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to say "you're AfDing my article in bad faith blah blah blah". Saying Moondyne is bad faith voting delete is . . . well . . . bad faith. As for the other articles you mentioned, SOME actually have *gasp* cites about things they DID that were noteworthy. The rest, well, I've already got a speedy template on one....more to follow. Adcruft. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

this entry is incomprehensible. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been updated so that the citations to the references make their relevance clear. People need to respect these references and stop deleting them, because then others complain there aren't enough references. None of the referenced articles are from press releases; they all came out at different times, over a span of several years, and indeed all of the articles refer to multiple other companies because their topics relate to industry issues, unlike a press release which would be solely about just the one company. If there's any remaining issues, please read the entire references *fully* again -- Ad-Up is mentioned several times in each article, and none of them are about 'funriture'. Keep in mind that any company listed in Wiki is going to appear like an ad, especially if the company offers marketing services. However, given the number of references cited in this article compared to the list of other wiki company articles above that each have NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER, its seems their deletioist efforts are better focused on those entries, and leave this demonstrably well-researched article in place as it should be. Wiki delete happy folks, please... move on -- there are plenty of other articles much more deserving of your attention (start with the list just above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .

Left comments on user's talk page. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The references in the article are trivial coverage. The company is non-notable. -Bogsat 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Basis please. Merely opining that coverage is trivial is trivial. Be specific. Read the comments above; there is significant evidence the coverage above is NON-trivial -- refute it or save your posts for /dev/null —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.24 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2006

Thank you for the thoughts. As is pointed out the article has eight references. References 1, 3, 4, and 5 indicate that Ad-Up is in Marina Del Rey that has had a web site for about 10 years. This does not meet criteria at WP:CORP. These are not published works (such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations), ranking indices of important companies, or show it on a stock market index. The other four references 2, 6, 7, and 8 are articles with trivial coverage of Ad-up. These are my thoughts but I could be wrong. On separate note I think your comments above about poping oxycotins and learn to read braile are inappropriate. Do you have a vested interest in the article or Ad-up? -Bogsat 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly suspect Chez is 61.7.156.24. He already said he didn't really like signing in. 61.7.156.24 has put AfD tags (incorrectly done, to my vast amusement, leave the deletion process to professional deletionists, please) on the articles that Chez mentioned. More to the point, 'industry indices' do *not* include Alexa. Your entire response to my points was obtuse to the point, insulting, uncivil, and most amusingly, didn't even bother to answer my questions. stop being pointy in your responses, it won't save your article, and you aren't swaying anyone's opinion. Have a nice day, and no, I don't pop 'oxycontins' , but you need to rein in that bad faith and personal attack attitude you got before an admin goes upside your head with a banstick. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 14:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Administrative note for the closing admin: please look also at Advertising by the Seven Network, BidClix, Casale Media and PointCast Media. All nominated for AfD in something of an accidental crapflood. All related to this AfD. Delete with, merge with or keep according to consensus on parent article or best judgment. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, does not meet WP:CORP and blatant WP:COI, and the very fact that this is being argued so strenuously by what appear to be company reps only helps underline just how non-notable this company truly is. If the company were notable, the existence (or not) of a neutral POV article on Wikipedia would be a matter of no concern to them whatsoever! The reaction to the original deletion and this AfD only underlines how desperate this company is to (ab)use Wikipedia for free advertising. Xtifr _tälk 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this one and all related articles. This company isn't necessarily notable, but it seems like other notable companies are going to get taken down with this one (they should ALL have separate AfDs). --- RockMFR 02:10, 9 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. Nishkid64 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yum Domains

Company is non-notable except in the context of it's owner Brad Hines whose article has already been AFD'd several times. wtfunkymonkey 01:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any support for the notability of this company on a Google search. --TheOtherBob 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete how is this not {{db-corp}}? Elomis 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see also the related Brad Hines afd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Utterly NN company. Resolute 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails the notabilty criteria for a company. It would need to satisfy one of the following:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.

2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications

3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

The sources cited make it look like the company might satisfy #1. However, reading the articles it becomes clear that the company is not "the subject" of any articles in notable publications. For example, in the USAToday article, the only mention of the company comes when the company's founder is cited. Apart from that, the article does not discuss Yum Domains at all. As for the other criteria, I could find no ranking produced by any publisher listing Yum Domains, nor can I find any refernce to its shares being used to calculate a major stock index (I'm not even talking about the DOW here, I'm talking about any major index). Hence, my proposal for deletion based on non-notability. -bobby 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't see anything that suggests this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines.--Isotope23 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP; sources provided are not non-trival mentions. Curious as to how they got away with naming their company so similarly to Yum Brands. ergot 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete stop atempt to create a walled garden. The subject does not pass WP:WEB, Alexa ranking below 5millionsths. Ohconfucius 01:45, 6 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. NawlinWiki 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Final Jihad

Delete, conspiracycruft. Fails WP:BK, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #495,645 in Books, multiple unsourced claims. Was proded, deproded on the grounds of “deprod, seems to be a non-vanity book” Brimba 03:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN cruftvertisement. --Tbeatty 03:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN - in 112 out of 10,000+ libraries per worldcat [7] GabrielF 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable conspiracycruft, poorly sourced. --MCB 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-vanity book. I see no reason at all to delete besides people not liking the topic (this is listed on Gabriel's "conspiracy" deletion noticeboard). WP:BK is not a guideline; it is a proposal someone made that does not have consensus. Note that this is a 1996 book, so it's no shock the Amazon rank isn't high. Plenty of today's books with articles will have low sales in 2016. Derex 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable published work. Catchpole 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment you may want to expand this reasoning, it sounds as if you are arguing that Wikipedia should have articles on every published work to date. --NuclearZer0 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per GabrielF and failing WP:BK. I think the idea behind WP:BK is to prevent books that sell well that vanish forever, books that so easily disappear really arent that notable to deserve an article, this isnt a book repository and there is no reason all books should have an article, especially one written by a non-notable person that has not won any awards or particular publicity. --NuclearZer0 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs sourcing and the like, give it a month or two, renom if it doesn't improve. *Sparkhead 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete n' stuff. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Catchpole: Verifiable published (wholly non-notable) work. Eusebeus 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BK, in that: (1) the book's author does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his work as a writer; (2) has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres; (3) has not won a non-trivial literary award; (4) is not taught at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country;(5) has not been the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources (reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion); and (6) has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience (this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews). Morton devonshire 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tbeatty. - Crockspot 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton devonshire. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. GeorgeC 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article is an article about a published book. Whether people agree or disagree with the content , it deserves to be covered in Wikipedia--CltFn 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton devonshire ITAQALLAH 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton devonshire. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no evidence that the book meets WP:BK, and that is the best standard we have thus far for judging it. Existence is not a sufficient basis for inclusion for any type of thing. There is no evidence of reliable sources discussing the book, so no reason to believe it meets WP:N either. GRBerry 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I tagged this with notability questions a while back. Arbusto 08:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Keep the author though. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated and per the points made by Morton devonshire. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in reputable, reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 03:14, 7 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. NawlinWiki 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Epsilon Chi

Contested PROD. Small casual group, not a "real" fraternity. Article is basically an in-joke. Joyous! | Talk 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unverifiable per WP:V and no sources are provided per WP:RS, which suggests a lack of external coverage. Crystallina 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources, no assertion of notability even if it does exist. Resolute 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Chalk it up to either NN ot hoax, depending on how you read the text below... From sigmaepsilonchi.com:

Apparently several people and our University heard about our little episodes. They claim people transferring to our University were putting our name down on applications for clubs. We started growing so fast that it got out of our hands. We were eventually brought to justice by our University and had to serve probation. Since then we do not throw parties and are pretty much gone except with this website. We tried to take a new direction by getting rid of the frat but keeping the website to have something to share with everyone. Now any reference to Sigma Epsilon Chi is only parody. We are not a frat nor do we have anymore members. We are a way of life!

Caknuck 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a recognized fraternity or student organization at the university where it was founded (three months ago). If this is a real organization, it can be considered for an article later once it is verifiable as a national organization. --Metropolitan90 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't confirm that the web site Caknuck found is intended to refer to the same organization described in this article. It's possible multiple groups could have been founded independently based on using Greek letters to spell out the word "SEX" (ΣΕΧ). --Metropolitan90 07:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 07:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Masamage 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:07, 3 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. NawlinWiki 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Prospector

I don't feel this newspaper is notable enough. Yes, it won a high school newspaper award. But the analogy given is the equivalent of a school sports team winning a state championship. We don't have articles of every school sports team that wins the championship. I could not find any other sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN school publication.--Húsönd 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though if the contributors want to independently add the information to Prospect High School that would be ok. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per FrozenPurpleCube . Stammer 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Student publications, are, by and large, usually non-notable, unless they themselves gain sufficient notoriety through press/TV coverage. In this case, delete. --SunStar Net 13:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 2 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. NawlinWiki 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Keating

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, conspiracycruft. Fails WP:BIO Most of the article deals not with the page subject, Martin Keating, but instead with his book “The Final Jihad”. Page was proded; deproded on the grounds of “deprod published author”. Simply a non-notable author who brother was the Governor of Oklahoma. Brimba 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails essentially every test for a proper encyclopedic article other than WP:MUSIC. It's a conspiracy essay. Elomis 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elmois GabrielF 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. --MCB 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Tbeatty 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I voted to keep the book, but this man has no notability otherwise. Derex 09:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A single published book is not enough to warrant an article, especially since that book isnt particularly notable, having won awards or being written by a notable author, part of a series of notable books etc. --NuclearZer0 11:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Saw it passed WP:MUSIC per Elomis, but delete anyway. *Sparkhead 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete n' all that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability outside of The Final Jihad, and spends most of its text repeating that article.--Rosicrucian 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fails WP:BIO criteria and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Morton devonshire 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton devonshire. - Crockspot 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - author of a published work, notability established.--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Being the author of a published work does not establish notability if the author has no notability outside of the work. Beyond that, said published work is also up for AfD.--Rosicrucian 16:05, 6 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. Not a chance this will be kept; unencyclopedic and original research. kingboyk 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Google Bombs

This is a weird one. If we allow a page on Wikipedia called List of Google Bombs with clickable links to the bombs in question, each Wikipedian clicking those links actually strengthens the bomb if they go to the link (which parses the bomb title to google) and clicks on the first link they see. This is the same sort of problem (although clearly to a lesser extent) as if we were to allow "list of clickable links that try to exploit your browser", by the very technical nature of the article, it poses a problem. Secondly, this Wikipedia article would be essentially adding to it's own notability by directly influencing the phenomenon on which it commentates; consider a page with a simple hit counter on it that Wikipedia links to in an article called "This Page Receives a Lot of Hits", the same technical theory applies in that the existence of the article makes it more true. I added subst:prod to this page and it was seconded, the author of the page essentially told me to go away and leave it alone, removing the tags, which while not against any policy shows a poor dismissive understanding of someone else's point of view. I believe this page is not catered for in existing policies but all the same, it's not an encyclopedia article. Elomis 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete-In addition to the "effect worsening" explained in the nom, no third-party sources are cited whatsoever. It appears all of these were found by typing the word in, which would be original research. Seraphimblade 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Brimba 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I suppose an example in google bomb would be acceptable, if a good source for them can be demonstrated (And I think there may be one or two), this whole list is probably not a good idea. Maybe somebody can start their own webpage on google bombs and put this there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some of these made me smile, some of them alarmed me. But I thin WP:BEANS should apply to google bombs, in that Wikipedia should not encourage them.-- danntm ^T _C 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Though an interesting article, it certaintly isn't encyclopedic.--TBCΦtalk? 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Unless I'm missing some JavaScript trickery, there is no "effect worsening" because Google has no way to tell that you clicked the top link, only that you searched for the "bombed" term. --Dgies 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That's part of the way Google works, (there's more to it than that but) people who search for a term and click on a result 'strengthen' that result, results that are ignored are probably not 'good' search results so they are demoted. When Wikipedians click links in List of Google Bombs they are, whether they realise or not, searching for that term through Google. Subsequently clicking the results strengthens the link and exacerbates the Google bomb. Elomis 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, to clarify between Dgies and Klomis, Google returns a small fraction of its results pages with the links embedded in Google links, e.g. http://www.google.com/blahblah/www.example.com/. Most results pages do not embed the links.--Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not an encyclopaedia article. Pcbene 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I can see the catch-22 here. We need to include examples -- and the list is interesting and no less encyclopedic than other list articles -- but it could make things worse. Suggest pick a few notable examples (i.e. any that received media coverage) and mention them in the main article, perhaps with the URL "non-hotlinked" in order to satisfy the citation requirements. 23skidoo 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. per BADJON Storm05 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• BJAODN is not an essay, guideline, or policy, let alone a criteria for speedy deletion. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:41, 2 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. NawlinWiki 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opera build releases

Deproded with a explanation in the talk page.^[8] However, what the most recent weekly is and what build they are using, to know what they are using. and This article was intended to make it easier for weekly testers. is not really a good inclusion threshold for Wikipedia. Prod reason was This list is not encyclopedic. Per Wikipedia is not a directory, [...] there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. There is nothing famous about each of these entries. We are basically replicating the information found at snapshot.opera.com/windows Even if the article could include information about each of the build to convert it into an article, I still doubt the entry would be encyclopedic. Requesting comments from the community. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Addenum: As this can be considered the article creator's first big good faithed contribution, I would appreciate the community to give insight about other guidelines or policies this article may not be respecting, and precedents if possible. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Complete listcruft. Elomis 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay and not a guideline or policy.--TBCΦtalk? 04:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Edit conflict delete per nom. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a mirror for release dates. --Daniel Olsen 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Um, using Wikipedia as an up-to-date source? Um, no. I'm going to suggest to the article creator that they try Blogger.com or some other site. FrozenPurpleCube 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory.--TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's always nice when people wnat to add information, but this is of interest only to a small group of fans/testers, and almost immediately obsolete. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic list. Wikipedia is not a release date list. JIP | Talk 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:42, 2 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. NawlinWiki 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan neiwert

Article about a non-notable person. Prod was removed from article by anonymous editor without comment. Only possible claim to notability is a book published by a vanity press by the name of PublishAmerica (see Washington Post article). Current Amazon sales rank into 7 digits. Google search for '"gentleman of leisure" +neiwert' gets just 44 hits, none of which appears to be a review of the book. So this article appears to contravene WP:VAIN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc., etc. Valrith 04:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Many of the Neiwert's claims to notability, such as having content hosted on MySpace or Blogtalkradio, are considered trivial as everyone, regardless of background or credentials, are allowed to submit content to said websites.--TBCΦtalk? 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, possibly semi-notable if the article cited sources. wtfunkymonkey 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not pass notability criteria for an individual. I won't list all the criteria since it is clear that Neiwert is not an athlete, politician, artist (ie. sculptor, painter etc.), participant i na major event, actor/tv personality, or an honeree on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. This pretty much limits us to the following two criteria:

1. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

2. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

I cannot find any (let alone multiple) non-trivial works for which Neiwert was the "primary subject". Nor could I find any source suggesting Neiwert has made a widely recognized contribution to his field (whatever that may be). As always, if someone can provide sources demonstrating the individual satisfies either of the above two criteria, I will rethink my suggestion. -bobby 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is already at least one president http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Dolce

She has gained virtually all her notarity from MySpace. Says so in the bio. (yoshikwan)

There is already at least one president that proves that MYSPACE fame isn't trival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Dolce She has gained virtually all her notarity from MySpace. Says so in the bio. (yoshikwan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshikwan (talk • contribs) 02:51, November 5, 2006

In his defense...

Although it is true that anyone can post a blog on a site such as Myspace.com, not everyone can be in their top ten rankings, which is based on total amount of unique hit's per day. If Neiwert's blog registered number one, which it has, and been confirmed to be, then he's got more popularity, meanstream popularity, than most people who are "notable bloggers." Each day on MYSPACE over 600,000 blogs are posted , on average. Neiwert consistantly makes the top 10 every time he writes something. Top 10 in blogs, out of 600,000. That's pretty notable. He has done numerous radio shows as a guest to talk about not only his book, but his blog.

Also, he is known more for his blog, than he is his book. But he is a published author, so that's why that notation was put in his description. That can be taken out if it has to be, but it is what it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshikwan (talk • contribs) 22:25, November 2, 2006

• Delete NN. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, should have singed previous comment. I appologize. As you can now see, his page has now been vandalized by 2 different people already. A sure sign that he is very well known, although not liked by some. YOSHIKWAN

He is popular. -The James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.74 (talk • contribs) 03:04, November 5, 2006

• Delete -- I carefully reviewed the criteria for WP:Bio, and the only one I could see possibly applying was the search engine test. Unfortunately, the subject fails this test also. "Dan Neiwert" gets 41 Google hits, while "The gentleman of leisure" gets 569. Fails WP:Bio. SWAdair 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Will no longer fight deletion in anyway, but all you guys seriously need to look at the history of this page, and do something about the vandalizers. I am to new to this site to know what can be done, but just read the "edits" by a few of these people. It's classless (yoshikwan).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Nishkid64 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Cameron

No verifiability established. 684 hits on Google. She won a local award. The ebook thing might be notable but it gets 1 Google hit for her name plus "wordclix". Doesn't seem like much else in there that could even be borderline notable. Metros232 04:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Couldn't find verification of her claims to notability from any reliable sources after searching through Google.--TBCΦtalk? 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough assertion of notability. Also, many of the edits were made by Cyndicameron, which tests WP:AUTO. Subject was a candidate in the recent federal election in Canada (see Etobicoke Centre#Federal election results) and this article happened to appear on WP a month before the election. My guess is that Aglinka (original author, no other articles edited) was a staffer on the subject's campaign staff. Caknuck 06:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, Alex Glinka is Cynthia Cameron's husband, which (if he's Aglinka, as it seems) makes this a contravention of section 1.3 of the WP:COI guideline. See [9]. --Charlene 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, Charlene. But I'll bet that her husband worked on her campaign, which would make me technically correct :) Caknuck 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't 684 Google hits enough for you? November7 23:27, 6 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. Nishkid64 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct-deliberative e-democracy

Apparently non-notable book. Would likely fail proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books) and page appears to have been created by one of the book's authors. --Dgies 04:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like extremely non-notable book. No way to tell if author is trying to promote his book or his political theories, but either way, this is not the place for it. Fan-1967 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google searches do not seem to establish this as a theory apart from its author, who also wrote the WP article. (But then, see Talk:Democracy & Nature for an example of me being on the losing side of a similar subject.) --SarekOfVulcan 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It can only benefit the wiki community to have some access to this set of concepts right now. i have been creating some categorizations to make this more systematic and hopefully more helpful. i would like to see this article remain here for the timne being. thanks. --Sm8900 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But how is this book notable? It is harmful to the encyclopedia if it is cluttered up with a lot of forgettable books and pet theories. --Dgies 02:26, 7 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 per WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn - Smerdis of Tlön 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Drechsler

*Delete Article doesn't establish notability of the individual. Yes, he was a German POW, but clearly not the only one. I don't see why his story is notable or encyclopedic. He does, however, get interesting google hits yet I still don't think his story is important for any reason - I think this is a good one to put up for discussion. Strothra 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) withdrawn nom. --Strothra 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep An interesting enough story that someone made a website 60 years after his death. To me this suggests there are enough 3rd-party citations in existence to establish notability... they just haven't been tracked down yet. --Dgies 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Werner Dreshler's story was actually very famous, there was even a recent history channel special detailing what went on. I really must say that the fact you would even nominate this article for deletion really makes me quite incredulous as this person is so obviously notable that it is difficult to assume good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see how he is notable. There were many POW's during WWII, and he doesn't seem too different. TJ Spyke 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How many POWs spied on fellow POWs for their captors and were executed for it? Dgies 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know the exact number, but he wasn't the only one. TJ Spyke 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually he was one of a very few, and what makes it even more notable is that the people who killed him were also executed, in fact that became the last mass execution in United States History, this is a well known story and there was even a recent one hour long history channel special about the whole event. I should also enlighten people by letting them know that this particular editor has nominated every single article I have ever created for deletion (which were some of his first actions as a wikipedian) after I reverted him on a completely unrelated topic (none of those afds stood which may be why he is trying again 6 months later).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Appears notable, has book on Amazon.com.--SarekOfVulcan 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obvious 2 notable points being collaboration with captors, & murder for same, then subsequent interest (last mass u s execution obviously shld be added to article) if all verifiable. all of these points indicate that subject may well be searched for on wikipedia. also querry lack of reason for nomination; on the face of it seems to support moshe's claim that it is purely vindictive Bsnowball 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - subject of a TV biography, author, not even in question. Proto::type 09:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no-brainer on that issue - what really is at question is whether to pursue this as a bad-faith nomination. --Leifern 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable and interesting SteveLamacq43 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Per notability guidelines for an individual:

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Two quick hits for published works can be found here, or here if you want to read a book about it to name a few, and I saw many more in German. As to suggestions of a bad faith nom, lets just assume good faith and wrap up the discussion without trying to get anyone in trouble. -bobby 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per publication from Navy Dept and TV documentary. Edison 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep: DCEdwards1966 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The man's been the subject of a History Channel documentary. Sounds notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems very notable to me. The TV broadcast only strengthens that. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability not even really questionable, as per all of the above. Badbilltucker 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, looks pretty damn notable. RFerreira 00:38, 3 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 a copyright violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripple Infants School

Vanity article, asserts long and colorful history, but not importance of subject. If this were a US school, it would have been speedied, I think. Delete SarekOfVulcan 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • See Wikipedia:Schools for more details.--SarekOfVulcan 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know what an "Infant School" is, but just by reading the article it doesn't seem to be notable. TJ Spyke 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With the possible exception of its age, I see nothing notable, just a load of trivia. --Dgies 05:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Judging by the pictures of the kids on the school's website, this is a kindergarten school. High Schools are bad enough, thanks. Resolute 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Catchpole 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep We feel this entry should be kept. The history section provides a unique insight into the 90 yr old history a school - the first type of school, in terms of it's architecture, in the country. It also provides a good refernce point for those people wishing to research about teaching with technologies and who reuire information about 'up to date' ICT within schools. Links are made with a famous UK Footballer too. The entry is quite comparable to many other school's entries. The text also demonstrates high quality original research, which local study museums will find of interest. The fact that the school is a 'kindergarten' school makes it even more worthy for inclusion - schools educating smaller children have just as much status as those catering for older students. For these reasons the entry is very worthy and credible and not any different from entries from other schools.Rippleinfants
  • The text also demonstrates high quality original research — I strongly suggest reading our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish documentation for the previously undocumented. If you want to make an argument for keeping this article, cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria. If you had written your article based upon sources, rather than upon original research, this would be a simple matter, because you would already have the sources to hand. Uncle G 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It falls under WP:COI --Lijnema 12:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to be particularly notable in anyway. There seems to be a lot of trivia too. --SunStar Net 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We give a lot of leeway for high schools as far as notability is concerned, but the same need not apply to kindergartens! Instead of sitting on the floor at home eating play-doh, the kids sit at a tiny desk and eat paste. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Pretty much the entire article is lifted from its website [10], so a WP:CSD A8 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 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. Nishkid64 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With Anger

Nomination This entry fails the WP:MUSIC criteria for establishing notability for a band, and is therefore arguably advertising in violation of WP:NOT Section 1.4.3. Depending on how you interpret "had immediate success" and "playing with" the likes of Dying Fetus and Napalm Death, it may even fail WP:CSD 1.2.7 for failing to claim notability, since the claim is the (true) claim simply to have played at least once at the same venue as Dying Fetus and Napalm Death, not the (false) claim to have toured with them. The Literate Engineer 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just being a band from Germantown, MD doesn't cut it for asserting importance. Mitaphane _talk 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The nom pretty much summed it all up. I'm not feeling like listing all the criteria, but head over here and check them if you feel inclined. Keep in mind that although the article specifies that some of the band's members played together in another band, the earlier band is not notable either (per its lack of article and a google search). In my mind, this was the only criterion that was even close. -bobby 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 06:23, 7 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. -- Longhair\^talk 08:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathode Ray Tube Beef Curry

Non-notable Delete! Is this serious? The only reference is myspace and livejournal. Those sources are useless to establish notability. And WHY did I find this when I clicked the Royal Anthems category? Green hornet 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and nominated for same under Wp:csd#A7 --Dgies 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 9 ghits, two-thirds of those are either WP or MySpace. Caknuck 06:50, 2 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. Nishkid64 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta and Fulton County

Nomination: This mixes elements of speculation ("Most have not yet been widely discussed, though the idea of consolidation has recently been mentioned by at least one state legislator" indicates in my opinion that a sizeable chunk is speculation), a violation of WP:NOT Section 1.9.3, with an unsourcedness that suggests WP:NOR violations. Smerging strikes me as unneccessary, given that the articles for Fulton County, Georgia and three municipalities (Sandy Springs, Milton, and Johns Creek) already contain whatever could be salvaged from the "Secession" and "Municipalization" sections. Thus, I think deletion is the appropriate course of action for this entry. The Literate Engineer 05:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The editor who created the article simply moved the content en masse from County in an attempt to clean up that article, but I'm not good enough with Wikipedia to figure out exactly who wrote it in the first place. The original research and POV problems make it seem like an essay to me and not an article; the speculation seems more like crystal balling than anything. --Charlene 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a POV fork with crystal-balling. --SunStar Net 10:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm usually kind to locations, but as this is none other than a hypothetical municipal district, I don't see any reason for an article. Yes, there appears to be major POV-ing going on in it, like an individual's proposal. --Oakshade 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:47, 2 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. Nishkid64 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ships in the FreeSpace universe

Just a long list of redlinks and some original research paragraphs regarding how people tend to use the ships. Delete as unenecyclopedic and unnecessary. Wickethewok 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep redlinks aren't grounds for deletion. Sections of original research can be removed without having to remove a whole article. "Unencyclopedic" is silly. This doesn't really qualify as listcruft, as it's organized and non-arbitrary means of listing. "unnecessary" simply depends on who's looking it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

Comment Given that this is an encyclopedia, I think "unencyclopedic" is perfectly valid.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete lists with a few red links are one thing, but this is nothing but. It's also essentially a game guide, and totally useless to anyone not familiar with the storyline. Opabinia regalis 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Proto::type 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A sea of red links. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTF Apollo. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft, and this is not a gaming wiki. --SunStar Net 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Red alert! Incoming redlinks off the starboard bow! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified fancruft original research. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a fan of the Freespace games, but I just can't figure out why I would want to look this up in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a gaming wiki). Granted, it isn't really that much worse than, say, a list of Pokemon by name. However, consider that it's a list of fictional ships which aren't individually notable outside of the very narrow game context. Sorry, I'm inclined to recommend deletion. --Alan Au 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, game guide. Many of the red links were created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTF Apollo, which succeeded because, like this article, it is completely filled with game guide information that's only informative for players of the game. Mitaphane _talk 19:32, 5 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. I did not perform the delete, but the article no longer exists. -bobby 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yehuda Farkas

I've tried to mark this for a speedy (first for being a test page, secondly for no assertion of notability), which has resulted in a scattershot series of claims turning up to assert notability. Google's never heard of the gentleman in relation to his film/TV credits, which is perhaps unsurprising since he was 11 at the time of Home Alone 2 coming out and I can only recall the one cute child star. I should also add that I checked IMDB as well as doing a standard Google. What Google does throw up, though, is a personal homepage which is under construction and not much else, which makes the descent claims more than just a little iffy, and likewise the "promising scientist" claim. In terms of the medal he apparently received, I couldn't find any evidence of that either, but I'd almost have to wonder whether that's sufficient notability given the number of people who've been honoured for their roles in the aftermath of 9/11. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Non-notable graduate student. Claims to being an actor are not confirmed by the Internet Movie Database, in which he is not listed. Article admits that he was among "thousands" of people who helped 9/11 victims. --Metropolitan90 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per one of my favorite essays, WP:HOLE. Opabinia regalis 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. I've had a good go at verifying this and haven't been able to find anything substantial. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - As Patent Nonsense. There is no such thing as a "presidential honor medal" and the completely bogus claims made on the page combined with the creator's blatent disregard for policy (removing tags etc.) move this past the realm of hoax and into the realm of things that need to go bye bye ASAP. -bobby 16:05, 2 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 (feel free to move it now). Yomangani^talk 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office Holdings

Text is a little confusing, but to me, this seems like an advertisement that slipped through. --Czj 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable company per WP:CORP. A google news search brings up nothing. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Office is a British High street shop, the article is not an advertisement it is giving a brief history of the company. Other British high street shops have articles written about them, such as Topshop, so this should not be a problem! -- Laura Davis
  • None of those are valid arguments. "If article X then article Y." is a fundamentally flawed argument. If you want to make a valid argument, please cite sources to show that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - thirty-odd stores around the UK is surely notable. Article may be better placed as something like Office (shoe shop) rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid argument, either. Again, please cite sources to show that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, which (quite rightly) are not based upon the number of stores a company has. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Office is often cited as a retailer in the UK national press (Times 10 December 2005, 3 January 2005, 8 September 2004, 29 November 2003, 4 October 2003; Guardian 12 June 2004, 6 September 2003, 1 March 2003; Sun 9 December 2003, and that's just the last four years in three papers.) This is brief evidence, not encyclopaedic in itself, but I strongly suggest the volume satisfies WP:CORP 2.1. As noted earlier, it would perhaps be best to consider moving the article to concentrate on the shops rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've seen an Office Holdings on my travels around the uk. If ASDA or Londis gets an article, so should this. Think outside the box 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is their website: www.officeholdings.co.uk Think outside the box 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And a google search gets quite a responce Think outside the box 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Counting Google hits is not research, a company's web site does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria, and "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument. Please take your chosen name to heart and stop thinking of counting Google hits and "I've heard of it.". Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have also found articles regarding Office and Tom Hunter in the Financial Times, I have referenced these. I think that this should satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Laura Davis p.s thank you to Think outside the box for your enthusiasm.
    • That's much more like it. Although the articles that you are citing appear to be about Tom Hunter rather than about Office Holdings, and it is the latter that is required here, not the former. (You can use {{cite news}} to format news citations in the correct manner easily, by the way.) See BETDAQ#References for what you should be aiming for at minimum. That is how to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to whatever the shoe shop chain is called. A holding company is probably not notable but a chain of shoe stores likely has a much better claim. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will change the title/move the article yet as I am new to this I cannot find any info on how to do this, if anyone could tell me that would be great. Thanks. Laura Davis
  • WP:GD shows the rules of the road for the deletion. Section 2.4 says that it's a bad idea to move during the deletion discussion. Assuming that the article remains kept (and I intend no prejudgement) WP:MOVE explains how to move pages; if you encounter problems, you may wish to log a request at WP:RM. Eludium-q36 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Office is a feature of every other British high street. Big company. --SandyDancer 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable high street office shop. --Oakshade 07:39, 9 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 to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkan 176°

No information was given at all as to why this particular vodka is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Wine & Spirit--sin-man 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - to Vodka. Although the alcoholic content makes this brand unique, an entry on the main vodka page will be more seen than an independent entry. -bobby 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect - to Vodka.--Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Vodka is far too busy on it's own; notable for unusual alcohol content. Unfocused 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Just Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 02:08, 6 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 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katamine

Contains insufficient indicia of notability, other than uncorroborated WP:PEACOCK words. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Then redirect to Ketamine per Zetawoof.) --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Edeans 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• No vote, but redirect/link to ketamine for spelling once this is over - it's a plausible misspelling. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no verification, possible COI. After deletion, it can be recreated as a redirect to Ketamine, because it is a plausible misspelling.-- danntm ^T _C 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability provided since since Oct 23. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 9 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. NawlinWiki 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOHell

non-notable AOL add-on, hacking program, etc. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I recall copious press coverage of the software back when it was released in 1994. References online are few, but Salon mentions it in passing as a landmark of security problems on AOL. The article may indeed need work to improve its tone, but the subject is notable Booklegger 17:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Past notoriety does not imply current notability. Many events and fads were once popular, but only those with a lasting impact are notable enough for an encyclopedia. At most, this deserves a blurb in the history section on the AOL page. I don't think anything would be lost if it was outright deleted however. -bobby 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 132k Google hits, 12 years later? Good enough for me. Set precedent as ISP backdoor software. --Vossanova ^o< 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for posterity, very notable hacking program of its time. RFerreira 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable program per Booklegger, et. al. Once notable, always notable. hateless 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable and still remembered by many. Laid foundation for the AOL hacking scene, which is still active 12 years later. --Czj 07:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, significant point in public awareness of security issues. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep first program to use the term "phishing"... significant to the history of the phishing article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it got significant press coverage when it first came out. Whispering 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• "'Keep"' people remember it to this day, and the contraction 'AOHell' is still used to this day.--AWB1986 22:25, 6 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. Nishkid64 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trim Road (Ottawa)

I tagged this for proposed deletion; this was removed as, apparently, not being from Ottawa, I am unqualified to comment on whether or not a three line article about a wholly unremarkable road deserves to be in Wikipedia. Refraining from expressing my opinion on that comment, this article fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It also has no worth whatsoever to an encyclopaedia, it's of the form 'road X is a road in Y, and goes through places A, B, and C.' There are many articles of this nature on Category:Ottawa roads, this is just one of them. Oh, and it's unreferenced, too. Delete. Proto::type 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I lived in the area for a while; Trim Road is not notable. I might as well write an article on Saddletown Circle NE or Heritage Drive SW. --Charlene 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Trim Road is in the growth area of The Capital of Canada,and the network of roads in the Ottawa area is one of the ways that articles on the NCR are being organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmacd123 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Roads typically aren't in need of their own article due to the lack of encyclopedic information on them. Wickethewok 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Roads are only notable if part of a provincial highway system. This isn't, and never was. Kirjtc2 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but remember Ontario's road system is very different. There are very few actual provincial highways in Ontario considering its size. There are however a sizable number of county roads or regional roads, which this falls under. Many of them are just if not more notable than your average tertiary highway in New Brunswick. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you assume provincial highways are notable, other roads are not. Frankly, if this sort of thing is deleted, we should also be deleting many of the provincial highway articles -- some of those highways really just are not significant. Skeezix1000 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - While it might not be necessary a notable route right now, it will definitely be in the upcoming years due to the rapid growth of Orleans and Cumberland. If the article is deleted it will likely be re-created in a year or two as major development is planned in the area of Trim Road and will be an equally important commuter route then neighborhing Tenth Line Road and the route will likely be equally notable then Innes Road the main E-W commuter route (besides the 174) in Orleans. So I suggest not to delete this.--JForget 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 'It's not notable but it will be in the future' is not a valid reason to keep an article.Proto::type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This road is a notable road for being in Ottawa central; you wouldn't delete Trafalgar Square just because it's a road article, would you?? --SunStar Net 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - no, being in the centre of Ottawa (or any city) doesn't magically confer notability. Proto::type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. This isn't Portage and Main, Yonge Street, Bank Street or even the 174, it's a local suburban road. Kirjtc2 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The proposal of the deletion of the route should be discussed among users of the WikiProject Ottawa instead as it was mentionned in the article history .--JForget 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Are they special Wikipedia users with special rights? Proto::type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP--and perhaps the recent comments on the WikiProject Ottawa site should also be considered. -- Bacl-presby 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Remember, Trim Road is a numbered highway, and unless we delete all those Texas Farm to Town Road articles, this should deffinately stay. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no reason given to keep the article. Proto::type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is a reason. I am saying since debates such as these have been made about similar roads and have been kept, the same thing should apply here. What makes Texas more important than Canada? -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Trim Road is designated as an Ottawa arterial road based on the current city Transportation Master Plan as approved 2003[11]. Ottawa treats arterials as second only to city freeways [12]. Trim Road is identified as an arterial road on the plan's Urban Road Network map [13] PDF) (as is Bank Street). And it's the eastern terminus of Ottawa's biggest bus route (95). The article was updated to indicate these notability items. Dl2000 03:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment being a stop on a bus route is hardly sufficient notability. Proto::type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important arterial road. Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Skeezix1000 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Arterial road meets all standards. Unfocused 01:17, 4 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. 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panos Armenakas

Seven year old child who is allegedly being courted by all manner of top football clubs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it will be approximately ten years before he plays a professional match assuming he even makes it that far.... ChrisTheDude 09:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 'cause you're only a wikizealot destroyer of all top-youngsters' articles. --necronudist 10:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, no I'm not (please be civil) and secondly, you can't vote that an article be kept solely on the grounds that you have a personal issue with me..... ChrisTheDude 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He has been written about by numerous non-trivial third parties ([14], [15], [16], etc.), and I think the notability comes not as much from what he will do (which would be crystal balling) but from what the football clubs are doing about him (which is current), but I'm not adamant about it. --Charlene 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep too, as per Charlene. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BIO. HornetMike 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per HornetMike. It is just plain silly to include a seven year old because he is predicted to be something, and then eventually delete his article when he gets older if he didn't become that something. – Elisson • T • C • 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - its the silly season for child prospects. In these days of YouTube it is easy to get press coverage for a clever kid. Interest from big clubs is routine who vie to sign up alll sorts of kids as an insurance policy. Whether they make it is another matter. Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - WP:BIO, WP:NOT a crystal ball. A seven year old? Next we'll be having talented football foetuses with their own articles. Stop the madness, now. Qwghlm 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. There are no citations in the article at all. --ElKevbo 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would be inclined to change my "vote" to "Weak keep" if someone, anyone, were to show the least bit of initiative and add the above-cited references to the article. That no one has done so bodes ill for the future of this article and its maintenance. --ElKevbo 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Adequate (but very poorly formatted) sources have been added to convince me this meets WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete simply because theres no citations? its obvious that theres mainstream sources so theoretically the article can be improved. User:Portillo

• Weak Keep. This is not the only uncitated article in Wikipedia! So, this argument does not convince me. And I agree that the fact he is just a kid is problematic. But he is indeed a "notable kid"! As another user said, "notability comes not as much from what he will do (which would be crystal balling) but from what the football clubs are doing about him (which is current)". A person can be notable of what others are doing for him not just of what he actually accomplishes!--Yannismarou 10:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• My "vote" to delete was not based on the lack of citations. Rather, it was based on a lack of any assertions of noteability (as evidenced by a complete lack of citations). I note with interest that despite this discussion there are still no references in the article. I agree with those who assert that the youth of the subject is a non-issue and an extremely poor reason to delete the article. Lack of noteability is a very valid reason, however, and the one on which I have based my "vote." --ElKevbo 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per BlueValour. -- Bpmullins 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: He is a kid! He has not played a professional game. He may be the next Pele, but until he actually plays a professional game he is simply not notable. -- MLD · T · C · @:  15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: as per Yannismarou & Charlene. Many third party sources listed here! Flibirigit 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I simply dont see the logic. Football players on wikipedia do not neccesarily have to be professionals, think about it, the article list of child prodigys contains panos and juan carlos chera why? because they are sporting prodigys simple as that [17] portillo

• Showing early skills doesn't make him a child prodigy in football - succesful footballers have much more - stamina, positioning, tactical awareness, speed etc. It is only in years to come that we will know if he also has these. BlueValour 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• But the reason he is a child football prodigy is because HE IS a child football prodigy, what do you think man u, barcelona and all these did with the video of juan chera? they obviously showed it to their high performance staff, or their youth development staff, its already been proven that he is a prodigy and i think its wrong for wiki to go against this, as you know the times, guardian, usa today and lots of other mainstream articles have mentioned already. portillo

• Keep Another footballing prodigy, should keep since he is a child prodigy like so many others who are child prodigies in other fields. Kurt000 13:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per successful AfD process on Paolo Maldini's 9-years-old son. Should you decide to keep this article, you would definitely contradict yourself. --Angelo 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

^ No because maldinis son is not famous for being a good player, he is famous for he is maldinis son. Maradona has a son playing for napoli, doesnt mean he is notable. juan chera and panos is not the same situation as maldini jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portillo (talk • contribs)

• • Comment for what I can know, tomorrow this kid could wake up and decide football is not that attracting, and switch to an engineering career. As well as Maldini's son, he's a crystal ball. --Angelo 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• The reports from newspapers and sports broadcasters are representative of the media interest about Panos. You are missing the point that he is notable for what others have said or done about him, rather that what he has done, or may do himself. Flibirigit 13:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. I had never heard of him, but it seems the media has. Notable for what he is, but not the footballer that he might become. aLii 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. He's not notable for what he might become but notable for what he is, which is a 7 year old boy who has attracted media attention and the interest of a hosts of clubs wanting to sign him. Englishrose 23:39, 6 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 to delete. W.marsh 15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Brighton and Hove buses named after famous people

An astonishing example of...erm...buscruft. I've no objection to this being merged into the main article on the bus company if people feel it's worth saving, but - to be honest - I don't really think it is. The title has a whiff of WP:DAFTness, too. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is amazingly non-notable. I was going to compliment the person who created the article on his remarkable enthusiasm for Brighton buses, but there are a whole list of editors. --Charlene 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose, but reluctantly. Whoever is in charge of selecting these names has a jaw-dropping breadth of imagination - Kitty O'Shea, Prince Petr Kropotkin, Gilbert Harding and Dusty Springfield all feature!. BTLizard 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The fact that the bus company name their busses is notable - I have never encountered it before. Put that fact in the bus company article along with a link to this list kept somewhere else. -- RHaworth 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• article in The Guardian, article in The Argus another article in The Argus another article in The Argus picture of the bus named after Peter Kropotkin — The fact that these buses are named after famous people has been reported and discussed at length (i.e. more than just 1 sentence "Oh yes, they name buses after famous people, there, too.") in multiple places by multiple people. Both that fact and several of the bus names and why they were chosen are amply verifiable. Either merge into Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company or keep as a valid standalone list broken out of its parent article that has no neutrality problems, is verifiable, does not require original research, and is neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad in scope.

  By the way, Jamaica does this, too. Uncle G 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company. I've seen named buses before, but not after famous people. Besides, it could be interesting for residents of the area. SteveLamacq43 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge. Whilst I agree with what Uncle G says about the verifiability and neutrality of the article, it remains non-notable as a subject for an article. The fact that the practice happens is quite enough information and so should go in the main article, especially since the bus company has a fairly extensive website of its own which already includes this list (and is likely to be more up to date than us) and even lists the manufacturers of each bus in the fleet! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, there's more information from secondary sources to be had than just the 1 sentence. From the cited articles we can source the fact that a competition was run to pick names for the buses, the fact that originally at least two alternatives were considered to using names of famous people, the 18 specific names that were added in April 2004, and the 19 specific names that were added in September 2005. Uncle G 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment – I make no dispute with your facts, but what's the value of that information? Just because there's information out there doesn't mean it's remotely appropriate for an encyclopædia. Those sources could be given as further reading from the main article, and besides, there's no reason why the mention which goes in the main article should only be one sentence as you seem to be concerned about. It could be several, but it should not, in my opinion, be a reproduction of the list which I stress is available on the bus company website. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You came close to answering your own question. The value of that particular information that I mentioned is context and detail, of course. It's more informative for the reader to know the history than just (to quote the article) "Since 1999 many of the buses have had the name of a famous person commemorated on the front.". Otherwise we might as well have articles like "Bill Clinton was President of the United States. There was a scandal.". Note that we are not discussing the article at hand (and I didn't say above that we were), but your assertion above that "the fact that the practice happens is quite enough information". It isn't enough information. Uncle G 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment – There is indeed a wider point at issue here. But to compare the importance or usefulness of the bus-naming policy of the Brighton and Hove Bus Company with the Presidency of Bill Clinton is not a realistic comparison. And (to discuss the article at hand) it is enough information for us here when the other (detail) information is available in the sources for people who want to dig. On the whole, Wikipedia doesn't feature sources copied out verbatim, but rather précis of those sources for the benefit of readers who want to retrieve the information efficiently. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a very realistic and pointed comparison. What you are missing is that your evaluation of the "importance or usefulness" of the information being discussed here is entirely subjective. I can imagine that there are people in Brighton and Hove for whom the scandal related to Bill Clinton is wholly unimportant and useless information that has no impact upon their lives, but to whom knowledge about the way that the local bus company names its buses is important and useful. (Read the very first sentence of the very first article that I cited, for example.) And the issue that we are discussing is not the copying out of primary sources (which I've not actually disagreed with you about and which is a perfectly good point). I explicitly wrote "secondary sources" above, and pointed out that there is material to be had from those secondary sources beyond "the fact that the practice happens", just as there is information to be had from secondary sources beyond the fact that "there was scandal". It turns out that it is about 3 paragraphs' worth. ☺ Uncle G 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
            • We'll have to agree to differ (although I think we're somewhat talking about different things.) I defend my subjectivity though. The content of Wikipedia should be objective. Anybody's decision of what to contribute (and/or leave alone) is always subjective. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. but might mention in the article on the bus company. Edison 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with bus company article. Was going to vote Keep as I object to lists being deleted (especially when the reasoning for doing so is that a category exists), however, there is more than one bus company that follows this practice (Ipswich Buses being one), so notability might be a sticking point Jcuk 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company. Oldelpaso 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial and per above comments. Daview 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the Brighton & Hove Bus Company. Interesting information for that article. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's too long to merge into the main article, but is wonderfully bizarre - we ought to have this information here. -- Beardo 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really notable. Not really particularly bizarre either - British locomotives have been named after famous people for many years. This is just too localised to be useful. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is too long for a merge, but is interesting as an article. I have referred to it a number of times and the editor list itself shows it is of interest. It has been covered in the National press and is noteworthy enough. Fork me 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree that this is WP:DAFT. I beleive the article is NPOV, verifiable and notable. Due to the methodology used by the bus company to choose names, the people listed should all be notable/famous and expect an article in wikipedia. We have lists of people for other purposes. Would this be different if we renamed the article list of people who feature on Brighton buses? If the answer is that it is too specific an audience you could drop the 'Brighton' part.Smiker 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can't see why it fails - per Smiker. --SandyDancer 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. No encyclopedic relevance. Sandstein 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets all content policies. The links provide by Uncle G establish a level of coverage and interest that permits encyclopedic material to be written. The associated list of names is a useful addition to the article. No opinion on a merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:35, 8 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. Nishkid64 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shared Wisdom

Delete this as advertising masquerading as neologism dressed up as a dicdef of a common expression Ohconfucius 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. - jlao ⁰⁴ 10:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable terminology from a non-notable book.OfficeGirl 01:26, 3 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 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FlexSnap

Tagged G11 (spam) but contested. Reads like advertorial and fails to make the case for significance, creator has contributed little else, but that does not necessarily mean much. Still looks like a press release, though. Guy 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I would be interested in understanding a proper procedure here, especially given the fact that there are a series of products that are given individual entries off of the Comparison of Image Viewers section. In fact, the FlexSnap edition also contains historical data and product development information. This seems to be a specific exclusion in light of other, very similar, if not identical entries. dedmond29 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Danny Lilithborne 02:46, 6 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. - Bobet 11:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis schaeffer

Appears to fall below WP:BIO notability requirements. Only claims to notability are to have played a season in a minor rugby team, and worked as a presenter on a local radio station. Google searches for his name in combination with "rugby" and "radio" return no relevant results. Possibly speedyable under CSD-A7, but decided to open it up to fair debate. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like self promotion. - jlao ⁰⁴ 10:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Schaeffer is a quite notable Sydney identity and has a significant following in media circles. He has recieved a number of local business awards and has stood for election as a member for federal parliament.

• Delete - first twenty ghits do not refer to this particular Dennis Schaeffer. That's very non-notable for a guy who "has a significant following in media circles". MER-C 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey one brave monkey you are a very brave non notable guy yourself. You don't seem to come up on a google search either in the first twenty hits. It seems that this particular dennis schaeffer is now number six on google hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.11.110 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete, jolly mix of db-bio, db-nonsense, and hoax. Weregerbil 11:18, 6 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. NawlinWiki 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tummy Trouble

This page has no substantial content. jlao ⁰⁴ 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - jlao ⁰⁴ 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is poorly-written at present, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. The three Roger Rabbit shorts (this, Roller Coaster Rabbit and Trail Mix-Up) are clearly notable enough, being spin-offs of a major feature film. A screen shot, infobox and a bit of detail on the animators, director, etc. for each one would improve all three of these articles no end. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This passes WP:NOTFILM. It was released theatrically as a "double bill" with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids per IMDB, and per disney.com was shown in every North American theatre that Honey was originally shown in. That means at the very least that it was released nationwide in two countries and was shown in 1,371 theatres, which is more than the one country and 200 theatres required by WP:NOTFILM. --Charlene 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Many of the early Disney and Warner Brothers theatrical animated shorts have articles, and if anything their rarity after 1970 or so has made them more notable rather than less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and verifiable film. Just needs expansion, is all. 23skidoo 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. New animated shorts prior to children's films, especially animated features, are fairly common today in the U.S., but were completely absent for decades prior to the Roger Rabbit shorts. -Acjelen 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - for clearly satisfying film notability criteria. I would remind the nominator that poor article quality is not really grounds for deletion. -bobby 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added 2 New York Times articles which discuss the importance of the film. It was a nostalgia blast in 1989 to see a cartoon before the movie, after many years of none. Edison 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough to me. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 3 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Soundtech

Notability disputed Dweller 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have created the article and listed it here for deletion in an attempt to resolve a dispute (here). Given this background, please try as hard as possible to keep this Afd civil. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

*Comment. What's the background? - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, now I've seen the background. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - As an informal, self-appointed, interfering old wannabe mediator, it seems to me that I should not voice an opinion on this Afd. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:CORP — claims to notability are vague (what defines a "leading supplier"? who recognises them?) and originate from the company's own website. Demiurge 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I know I'm all involved in this and stuff, but this is a rather obvious failure of WP:CORP. Danny Lilithborne 13:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear failure of any evidence of importance. Some third party evidence would be needed. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I've seen the claims of notability, I'm even more convinced they are not important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article. Lets get all the Fortune 1000 covered before we write articles on mom and pops. I suggest a 100 million revenue minimum for corps to cover. - Taxman ^Talk 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notability information - Below are various new notability signs about "Alice Soundtech"/"Alice Broadcast". -- 62.147.86.249 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • From the Ofcom (Office of Communications, the UK's communications regulator, formerly Oftel) in a 1996 publication [18], "Competition Issues in Terrestrial Broadcast Transmission": " Chapter 2: market and competition analysis [...] Transmission equipment is increasingly being supplied by a few small specialist companies such as Alice Soundtech, SSVC and SBS, particularly to small independent radio stations with lower power transmission requirements. " [19]
  • In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the would-be director's resume says in section "Ability to maintain proposed service": " He moved to the UK in 1995 and has worked in high profile positions in the broadcast engineering sector ever since. At Alice Soundtech (1995-1998) he developed a good direct knowledge and relationship with many key players in UK broadcasting " (Given in this context, it means Alice is a "high profile position" well-known to the Ofcom people and namedropping them is supposed to be impressive.) (PDF)
  • An independent assessment made by Radiquip (a radio equipment renting company): " Manufactured by Alice Broadcast Solutions the desk has proven popular with hospital radio stations for many years. Whilst its big sister the Alice Air 2000 desk is used extensively by ILR stations, the Series A has proven a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world. " [20]
  • From an independent press release of Bryant Broadcast: " Alice appoint Bryant Broadcast as a new distributor (5 Feb 2004) Bryant Broadcast has now become an official distributor for Alice Broadcast Products. In particular we stock a number of the more popular "PAK" boxes, which are widely used in edit suites, studios, etc. to 'mix-and-match' domestic and line level equipment. " [21]
  • From independent reseller CP Sound: " Alice soundtech build problem solving boxes to interface unbalanced to balanced units, splitters and stereo source combiners for every eventuality. [The founder and owner of CP Sound] states that they are a very professional company and would recommmend using them where ever possible. " [22]
  • From the resume of an executive at the UK branch of Radio Computing Services ("the world's leading provider of broadcast software"): " Ben has been at the forefront of technical supply and management in the UK broadcasting industry since 1990 when he joined Alice Soundtech plc, a turnkey broadcast equipment manufacturer and transmission provider. " [23]
  • From the "The Creative Team" (graphic house that made their brochure): " A new brochure for Alice Broadcast Solutions, an established name in broadcasting, brought their extensive range into the 21st century " [24]
  • From their own history page: " Alice was first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes. This was a revolutionary concept for the industry " [25]
  • It should be noted that of course, community or hospital radios rarely provide the list of their equipment, thus manufacturers in that branch aren't much visible, even if very present on a market. Thus, it's probably significative that we can still find quite some, such as:
    • From the UNESCO's "Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC; 23rd; New projects" about a "Production of radio programmes for young people on the rights of the child" project, equipment list: " Mixing table (Alice Soundtech A-3 inputs). " (PDF)
    • From "Chippenham Hospital Radio - Engineering - For the geeks among us" infos: " The mixing desk is probably the most important part of the studio - we use an Alice Soundtech Series A desk with 18 channels " [26] and " The old EELA desk [...] The New Alice Soundtech Desk " [27] (so that's the gear they have chosen when upgrading)
    • From "Hospital Radio Tunbridge Wells - Our Technology": " These are all connected together using an Alice Air 2000 mixing desk, which allows the presenter to be in complete control of the equipment. The output of the mixing desk is what the patients hear at their bedside. " [28]
    • From "Portsmouth Hospital Radio - Studio Three": " It houses a broadcast control desk (Alice Soundtech 'A' Series) " [29]
    • From "Ben Gamblin - Broadcasting" infos: " Alice Soundtech Series A Mixer Desk " [30]
    • In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the "Flame FM on Wirral" radio lists its equipment: " Transmitter (Manufacturer) (model) Alice Soundtech GTx20 " (PDF)
    • From The Radio Magazine, in an article where some other company names are followed with an explanation, they are casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them: " Forever Broadcasting and Alice Soundtech PLC are backing the Splash FM bid " [31]
    • From the mailing list of the Community Media Association [32], a 2002 thread about "Broadcast equipment needed": " Resonance FM one of the UK pilot access stations is now buying its broadcast studio equipment - anyone selling or with knowledge of where to get quality broadcast desks and equipment secondhand please reply [...] Try Alice Soundtech... not exactly cheap but damn good gear. " [33]
  • I'd add that I also stumbled on various yellow pages and catalogues in German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, French, Polish, indirectly confirming their claim to be used internationally, such as their saying " a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world ".

• Keep - IMO, the official Ofcom document analyzing the UK market and citing 3 main companies including Alice Soundtech would be quite enough for WP:CORP alone, considering the governmental source and the fact that this domain isn't one popularly written about. And I think it's clear they're "an established name in broadcasting" to professionals in the radio business: being very notable inside a given domain is important even when relatively unknown to the main populace. (Full disclosure, I researched the above material. I am however not linked in any way with this company.) -- 62.147.86.249 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:CORP: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" — one passing mention of the company's existence in a lengthy Ofcom report does not in my opinion qualify the company as "the subject of a non-trivial published work". "casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them" is a bit of an extrapolation, to put it mildly. Catalogue entries and sales brochures are not admissible under WP:CORP, and mailing lists are inadmissible under WP:RS. Demiurge 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like they make good mixers, boards and other audio equipment, but no articles are presented from, say the audio or broadcasting press to show notability even within one industry. And as for the claim "first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes" one might check [34] to see many companies (RCA, Gates Radio, General Electric, Westinghouse, Collins Radio) supplying off the shelf broadcast equipment long before this company was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Edison 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN company. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Counter-comments (in answer to Demiurge's comments):
  • For one thing, since the Ofcom report is about a different topic (competition in the radio market), it is telling that some companies of mere hardware get mentionned at all. And for another thing, it's about the weight of the source: when Ofcom says those three companies are the main suppliers of transmission equipment, it provides a great authoritativeness to the information, regardless of the main topic of the document. IMO, this claim in a governmental document, that Alice is one of the main players, shows as much notability as three dedicated puff pieces in industry magazines. It's about the spirit of the notability criterion, not the letter: a non-notable, local company simply doesn't get mentionned as one of the three main players in an Ofcom document, whatever the main topic of said document.
  • Another point about the "Ofcom criterion" would be: would accepting it open a Pandora box of hundreds of small companies being justified too? No: the Ofcom report mentions only three names. And those three companies Ofcom list as main players on this market, why wouldn't they be documented in Wikipedia? How can this market and domain and topic be covered on Wikipedia, if even the top 3 players named by the authoritative Ofcom aren't allowed on Wikipedia?
  • "Catalogue entries and sales brochures" may not be admissible for their content itself (commercial hype), but they can still provide good hints, since we're not just talking about an abstract company but also its products and its sales. For instance, if a company's products can be found all over the world in all catalogues from resellers, then it does provide another sign of notability: a non-notable, local company's products just aren't sold and found everywhere.
  • The other items aren't convincing by themselves, sure, but such accumulation of different sources help show there's something there, at least for casting a reasonable doubt against just immediately killing the article without further investigation. (If there's only a handful of highly specialized industry magazines, for a relatively very small readership, finding dedicated articles online is illusory, it'd require a professional to lookup specialized databases in his library.)
  • -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• More notability informations
  • Infos from scholar papers (one full article, and plenty of mentions showing it's also quite used in labs):
    • In Broadcast Systems International (Vol. 16, pp. 46-7. Jan. 1990) a whole article entitled "Soundtech Series A mixer" about this product (search result, article content available only in library) -- that's all about one of their key product (Soundtech Series A on Alice's site).
    • In the thesis Features for Audio-Visual Speech Recognition (School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, September 1998) p.36 mentions: " [The recording] was adjusted for each talker through a Soundtech Series A audio mixing desk and fed to the video recorder. " [35]
    • In the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (Vol.46 1184-1196 October 2003), "The Influence of Phonemic Awareness Development on Acoustic Cue Weighting Strategies in Children's Speech Perception", the scientist mentions: " tokens were recorded onto digital audiotape (Sony, Model DTC-60ES) via microphone (Sony, Model ECM-77B) and amplifier (Alice Soundtech Plc, Model Mic-Amp-Pak 2) and were transferred to computer for analysis " [36]
    • In the thesis Implementation of an Interactive Mathematics Tutor utilising Participatory Design methods (cs.bath.ac.uk, 2005) p.53 mentions: " All sounds for the game were recorded as *.wav audio files through an Alice Soundtech Series A broadcast mixing desk using Cool Edit Pro 2.0. " [37]
  • Infos from business news and books:
    • At Alacra, "The Premium Business Information Source", is sold a booklet of "Company Profiles & Financials" published by Dun & Bradstreet about "ALICE SOUNDTECH LTD" (search result, content is premium) -- I reckon D&B doesn't have a dedicated company profile book about just any UK company, so that would be another sort of WP:CORP publication.
    • At Alacra again, is sold a 1996 document entitled "Headline project for ASC" from Pro Sound News Europe that mentions " [...] fully equipped on-air studios together with Audionics matrix switchers, audio workstations and other equipment from Alice Soundtech. " (search result, content is premium)
    • In the book The Sound Production Handbook (by Don Atkinson, John Overton, Terry Cavagin, 1995), a book "covering basic sound theory and all aspects of sound operations within television and broadcasting", on page 191, "Appendix C: Television organizers and manufacturers", is listed "Alice Soundtech" (search result, content is premium) (book TOC)
  • -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the references cited in this discussion amount to nothing but passing references-- they are evidence that this is a real corporation, but not eveidence that the corporation is notable. And it appears from the history given that the article itself was created out of a motivation contrary to the spirit of WP:POINT. This article is more of a directory entry than an article that anyone would truly learn from. Developing it further would only turn it into an advertisement. OfficeGirl 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some more notability information
  • They operate some transmission sites for Independent Local Radio such as TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio (from the Virgin Group):
    • A large mast in Boston, Lincolnshire: " Boston is an Alice Soundtech site bringing the AM services of TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio to Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. " [38]
    • From 1993 to 2001, the 33 metres mast station in Swindon and others: " The site and equipment was owned by Virgin Radio and operated / maintained by Alice Soundtech. There were 5 sites like this (Swindon, Boston, Gatwick, Lydd and Pirbright (Guildford). " [39]
    • (This website is badly indexed by search engines, so there may be more.)
  • From the UK business directory Internet192: " Alice mixing consoles are the preferred choice of equipment for some 90% of radio stations [in the UK] " [40]
  • From the resume of 3TS Broadcasting's CEO: " Howard previously headed Alice Soundtech PLC (as Managing Director) the UK's largest Radio Broadcast Equipment Manufacturer and Turnkey Radio Studio Solutions company. " [41]
  • -- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : the UK broadcast industry should be covered, and a few of its players, even if they're notable only inside this industry, rather than to the mass public. The topic of the UK's Independent Local Radio and Restricted Service Licence links to a few articles about UK local radios or TVs, but has not much background for the hardware industry behind it (mixing consoles and transmitters). The official Ofcom reports provides an authoritative source about which main players can have an article. -- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 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 Redirected to necrosis. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead tissue

No google hits at all for Radicaldelousious, likely hoax Seraphimblade 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a hoax. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or redirect obvious hoax to necrosis. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hoaxalicious. Delete as above. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. If they were going to make up a medical term, they should have used a standard medical suffix like -itis or -osis or -ectomy. "Radicaldelousious" sounds like it should mean "the state of being radically deloused". How can one be non-radically deloused? --Charlene 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is an obvious hoax. One of my friends who does GCSE History of Medicine verified this today, via email. --SunStar Net 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete not even a very good hoax. --Dweller 15:34, 2 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 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABS-CBN Stars

This is "list" highly irregular, Wikipedia doesn't have a List of NBC personalities (guess what, Kappa created it on November 3. What's next, List of BBC personalities? --Howard the Duck 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). The list is unencyclopedic importance and should be left for blogs and fansites.

Note that this list was formerly at "List of ABS-CBN personalities", which was prodded and deleted. Then it was transferred to the present article name. This was previously prodded and deleted. Then it was recreated and was slapped by PROD again by Desertsky85451, which I added with a prod2. Kappa removed the prod templates. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A notice of discussion is posted at Tambayan Philippines. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the deletion. A better alternative would be, say, to categorize each individual star under the appropriate category. A separate page for this might be redundant considering that ABS-CBN has its own category. Or, a separate category (say, "ABS-CBN artists" may work, too. --- Tito Pao 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete i think my PROD speaks for itself. DesertSky85451 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, helps wikipedia readers find articles about notable people who appear on the channel and gives them some clue as to who they are and why they are notable. Kappa 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, and it shouldn't be a directory of directories, either. Categorize the various "stars" per Tito Pao. OfficeGirl 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't categorizing them create a directory? Kappa 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The list is subject to change so maintaining it wll be hard. 23prootie 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what is the point? --SandyDancer 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Danngarcia 03:11, 5 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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamersfire.net

Contested PROD; does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Joyous! | Talk 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:50, 2 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons of Eve Online

Wikipedia is not a game guide. No other useful content otherwise. MER-C 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to the main article of Eve Online. --Deenoe 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article, it was originally split from EVE Online due to the article becoming too large, this article does require some cleaning up, however I don't feel it deserves deletion. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. May need to be pared down a bit, but it was split off from the main article for good reason. If consensus is to delete, it might be more useful to merge some of the information back to the main article. The set of articles on EVE Online should be kept to a minimum though: Main article, spaceships, and perhaps weapons. I don't want to see the category getting as cluttered as Runescape is. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Whatever information that should be kept - ie, very little, and generally only as it relates to gameplay - can be merged back, but really, the rest of this can go. There's not really any need for a whole article on this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero external sources merits automatic deletion per WP:NOR. Also, is the policy that WP:NOT a game guide really so hard to understand? Sandstein 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We simply don't need weapon lists. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Big chunk of original research, this is. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's fun to read, but that doesn't make the information notable or encyclopedic. Transwiki if there's an appropriate place to list this information, but Wikipedia isn't it. --Alan Au 09:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per past precedent of weapon lists. --- RockMFR 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If you delete this people will add information back to original EVE Online article which will then become to long and will be requested to segment. One of the reasons for deleting this appears to be that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Re: WP:NOT a game guide, I'm not sure if eevrybody has actually have read the article in question but it doesn't in anyway give hints, tips or instructions (ie a guide) for playing the game. I do agree though that it does lack external sources which can be added if the article is kept. 12:54, 7 November 2006
  • It has stat tables. Stat tables. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT instruction manual/indiscriminate collection. I've kept a copy at StrategyWiki:EVE Online/Weapons; if people want more indepth information just link to that. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 8 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 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airviolence

dictionary definition, contested prod QuiteUnusual 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — The article calls itself slang, and by the lack of verifiable sources, it is clearly an non-notable neologism. Martinp23 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Martinp23. Does not meet requirements of WP:V. -- Satori Son 06:14, 8 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, possibly merge pending discussion. Despite the numbers !voting delete, I don't think I've ignored consensus closing this AfD the way I have. Around the 5th/6th November the original research essay was removed, and replaced with the beginnings of an encyclopedic article. Many of the earlier !votes were based on the OR essay which no longer exists. There appears to be agreement that this is a subject worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, and the article may need to be reduced to a stub and built up again with the content from Philosophy of probability/temp, or merged into Philosophy of mathematics or elsewhere. But that's a discussion best left to the article's talk page. -- Steel 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of probability

Essay / original research. I am prepared to accept the claim on the talk page that this is not a copyvio. Also would need a lot of work simply removing the HTML markup. -- RHaworth 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host, this IS original research. --SunStar Net 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• How could you say so firmly that is original research? Could you say what research is about? What is its subject? And what are the obtained theoretical results? It is in fact just an expanded definition of "philosophy of probability". The philosophical concepts can not be presented just like the mathematical ones - simply stated and in a standard manner. Any definition or presentation would look like an essay. I could give you all the bibliography for finding all ideas of the article in works of classics. It is nothing original there. --infarom
  • Oh wow. Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but userfy at User:Infarom for the time being. I think that an article on the philosophy of probability (the meaning of statements cast in terms of probabilities, the epistemology of probability) is a valid subject. This reads too much like an essay for main encyclopedia space for the time being, but the author says that he has a bibliography he's prepared to add. I'd let him work on it a while longer and try again once he's done a bit more with it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have started a very brief proposal for a text to replace this one at Philosophy of probability/temp. I would happily invite Infarom and any others to continue to work on this. Not really my field, so others' contributions are most welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. This would appear to be original research per the author's own contention that the single source for this is his/her own website. A userfy would be fine (if the author creates a Wikipedia user) and would perhaps allow them to get some outside help in creating an article instead on an essay, complete with external reliable sources.--Isotope23 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now and give the author a chance to improve the arcticle from an essay into an encyclopedic article. No need to be trigger happy since it does indeed appear that there is not a copyright violation at issue here. Give him a couple of weeks and then review whether it merits deletion. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Absolutely legitimate topic for an article, says someone who got a B.S. in Mathematics from a reasonably well known science/engineering school with eight courses in prob/stat plus did their humanities concentration in philosophy. There are multiple philosophies of proability that generate different understandings of probability. But this isn't the article we need right now; too many bullet points, too little prose. Userfying seems like the right thing to do. GRBerry 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  The only issue I have with userfying the article is that it makes it harder for it's development to be collaborative. Since the issue doesn't seem to be with the merits of having an article on this topic, why not leave it in article space while it is improved? Certainly, there are worse articles in article space on less useful topics than this...why the rush to move it out? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per OR. Arbusto 08:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

infarom Guys, I made a brief from the article in question, I tried to put it in encyclopedic style. What else?

Try to set out the basic different philosophies. Start either with the oldest (Classical definition of probability) or with the one usually encountered first, which I think is now Frequency Probability, then discuss the others (like Bayesian probability) in some logical fashion. Wikilink generously, to build the web, and make use of existing content. GRBerry 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with modifications --- such as, adding Bayes, and others, plus tie better into the more non-mainstream elements on the Philo of Math discussions. As an aside, 'encyclopedia' is to be both broad and deep (that is comprehensive and complete). Now, as one who regularly uses 'wiki' as a pedagogical tool (yes, even for my own periods of pursuing edification), I cringe when I think that some want to limit what threads unravel within this environment. Some of the pages on 'wiki' are priceless in terms of collecting, aggregating, and presenting information - then, providing a launch point for further study. Now, this article is apropos to several items addressed on the Philo of Math page, such as this one and this, too. jmswtlk 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Move/Merge - perhaps the content ought to be put into this page (Probability_theory#Philosophy_of_application_of_probability) or be the method to expand upon that topic. jmswtlk 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research, as above. Rray 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Request for math skills editors... or whatever. The user who created the article has created or edited several similar articles (like Probability-based strategy and Mathematics of gambling ), adding links to his own website. This site may be brilliant in its math, or not, but I wouldn't know. So perhaps someone technically skilled could look at other edits. Additions are original research and should get a delete as such, or perhaps a total stubbing of this article as it seems to merit an article, just not this one. 2005 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with 2005, topic deserves an article, but this qualifies as OR and ought to be deleted. I have no problem with author rewriting new encyclopedic article on topic using reliable sources etc, in the future. Pete.Hurd 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. Needs more work, but there may be references somewhere for the presently original research. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'deletes' and 'userfys' are growing. I haven't seen anything about what 'userfy' means or how this might be done. However, I do see that GRBerry has a link to a recent essay that seems pertinent. Is the stub and develop method now not in vogue? I thought that one great characteristic of the 'wiki' way was collaboration and its potential. Will that benefit carry over to the 'userfy' mode? jmswtlk 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This page was created by a new user, User:Infarom, and then listed for deletion a scant five hours later. Infarom has responded to this AfD reasonably and has worked since its listing to accomodate the issues that have been raised. There seems to be general agreement that the subject of the page is a valid topic, so what is at issue then is the current content. I don't see any attempt to push a point here even if the initial creation contained original research by Infarom. Neither deletion nor userfying seems to me to be warranted—this can all be handled by the normal article development process. It would be a better use of people's time here to put the effort into improving the article instead of debating whether to delete it. Let's not bite the newcomer and give him and others a chance to work this into an article. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote summary

I've not participated before in a deletion process, however I have experienced the 'deletion' event. Is it a simple majority vote? If we take 'userfy' as stronger than delete and allow that comment content overrides a 'delete' vote (meaning, the vote is dependent upon changes being made to the page), then the count (at the time of the time-stamp of this comment) is 7 deletes and 6 nots. Who mediates the controversy? This suggestion (Philosophy of probability/temp) by Smerdis of Tlön would be a very good starting article. jmswtlk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a bunch of administrators who close AFD discussions. Sometimes they get closed early, if the article is shown to meet a criteria for speedy deletion or a criteria for speedy keeping, or the outcome just becomes totally obvious.

AFD is not a vote, although it sometimes gets treated as one. AFD is meant to be a discussion to measure consensus as to whether an article adheres to our policies and guidelines, or could be cleaned up to do so, or if instead it is unsalvagable and needs to be deleted. If everything was running on time, the clear closes would happen on the sixth day after the AFD discussion began, so November 8 in this case. AFD closure is a process that is normally backlogged, and it isn't unusual for the discussion to run a few days extra. This article is definitely evolving to be better.

Both the temp page and the current draft of the article have their points; they ought to be combined. I'd now say that this is far from being original research. It does need further work, but so does almost every article here. GRBerry 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to administrators - The /temp page could be altered with content from the main page and be of value. Comments related to 'original research' may have applied to the initial contents; they cannot apply to the concept or its importance. Adding to my remark from above, I've noticed that 'wiki' now doesn't seem to allow time for evolution. No page, that I know of, manifested itself with 1 edit for which there was never a change. I can see jumping on vandalism. Why jump on someone proposing a topic even if the approach seems self-serving initially? By the way, when something is deleted, are the contents gone or are they still accessible in some log? jmswtlk 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrators can review deleted articles and/or undelete them. Regular users can't, except by making a request, the central spot for which is at deletion review. (Minor caveat; a few super admins can remove specific edits from the deleted history; it it is intended for use to eliminate visibility of private information such as home phone numbers, etc... In this special case even admins can't see the deleted history.) GRBerry 20:51, 7 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 10:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funky J

Been tagged as unsourced with notability issues for over 2 weeks. Name pops up a few times on Google, but as far as I can tell, the hits are for a blog and an active forum member of the same name. I haven't been able to verify any of the information that would make him notable. --Onorem 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete on the basis that it just looks like one massive plug for the person. SteveLamacq43 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - The page is unsourced, and seems to be a bit biased. I also wouldn't be surprised if certain elements of this are completely untrue, such as the alleged GreenPeace benefit in central Africa "to teach the Indigenous Peoples ( who which gave Funky the Alias Loco Gringo) of the benefits of recycling and replenishing our Mother Earth." (4 hits on google none of which are from GreenPeace). I'd speedy it, but I'm not sure there's quite enough nonsense. -bobby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - I don't see anything notable, unfortunately. --TheOtherBob 21:36, 3 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 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikhil Parekh

Nikil Parekh looks at first glance to be notable, what with the many awards and 120,000 Google hits. However, looking through the many links from the page, it's noticeable that they are all to paid-for groups, blogs, the poet's own website, vanity presses and so forth. In other words, though a strenuous and successful self-promoter, there are no sources meeting WP:BIO that substantiate the poet's notability. The record book mentioned is run by Coca-Cola in India as a promotional gimmick and does not check the "world records" it prints. Equally, it is noticeable that the poet's website lists his Wikipedia article as an achievement. Taken together with the article creator's work on Only as Life (also up for deletion), and his contributions to other articles and debate, I think there is some evidence of a walled garden being created. Vizjim 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep of this great article on Nikhil Parekh- I really dont understand what's all this debate about Nikhil Parekh. People here who are trying to remove him from Wiki, are downright jealous , nothing else. Parekh, conforms with all WIKI guidelines, and he is indeed India's most famous poet. The Limca Book of Records is ranked only 2nd to Guinness Book. How can you say that its a mockery or something illegitimate. Its the biggest record book of its kind in India representing more than 1 billion Indians across the world. Parekh has entered it twice in a year. His other records are truly international. For instance, his awards at Preditors and Editors, Poemhunter, the EPPIE award which again is the highest honor given to ebooks today, are all noteworthy and to International standards. I think we must divert our energies to other people here at Wiki, rather than get after Parekh, after all what he's achieved. Wiki is not a ramification of enviousness for a particular person or in this case a notable poet. And how many times should I reiterate that I'm not Parekh, this is really outrageous and invokes some action against those who are saying so. I'm just doing my best to create and edit wiki pages, as per wiki standards. My aim is not to promote Parekh, but to ensure that the best stays here at Wiki. Before you comment please research. Atleast research Limca Book of Records in India, and you would find that its the biggest record book of its kind in India and only 2nd to guinness book in the World. And again as I'm iterating above, all of Parekh's other international awards and acclaim are truly prestigious. He's published in the Commonwealth Magazine, now would you call that a gimmick too. This is really outrageous and a downright mockery, an envious interpretation of a world famous poet, simply to tarnish his image here. I would implore Wiki people themselves to carry out extensive researches on Parekh before thinking of removing this wonderful wiki article on him. After all the success that he's attained has really done India proud and so the world. There's no point deliberating about his awards and acclaim, as research would show that its truly noteworthy. I feel its a situation as absurd as this, that next people would start challenging the credibility of the Booker or Pulitzer prize and then say that those who've won it are self promoting themselves , and should be removed from Wikipedia. Truly and irately preposterous. Coolkeg908 13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note - Coolkeg908's contribution history shows only contributions to debate on the name Parekh, creation of article on Nikhil Parekh, creation of article on poems by Nikhil Parekh, and insertion of Nikhil Parekh's name into various other articles, including one on the film Titanic. Vizjim 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Supporting my argument-Well quite untrue. I have also edited sections on Poets, Poems, adding vital informations to other poetry communities, international poetry groups on the Internet. And, yes, I agree that my contributions have been mostly pertaining to Parekh. But what's wrong with that. I am a great reader of all his works and have researched several of his works thoroughly. I also see several several other wiki editors like me here, who have worked on a particular individual/person, as their research base on that person is almost picture perfect. In my case, I can say that about Parekh. Since I have studied thousands of pages on him over the Internet and elsewhere. I have studied him in national news, periodicals, websites, groups and have followed his poetic creations worldwide. Thus am emphatic to list his name at places here and contribute the most authentic information about him. So what's wrong in that. Which Wiki rule specifies that you cannot singularly contribute about a person. Or, as according to you, that if you do indeed contribute singularly about a specific person, then you yourself are that person. Its preposterous and absurd. Stop this babyish enviousness and concentrate upon the context of your debate. Wiki is not guided by personal enviousnesses or kidplay's of removing or keeping an article. It goes on articulately assembled facts and figures. May they be provided by anyone on earth, it doesnt matter. Facts and figures if they are legitimate and noteworthy, then Wiki would place them, irrespective of whatever bias people might have to this issue. And in Parekh's case, as I've also said above, the facts rule. His awards and international acclaim, his other records and stuff are simply incredible. Do thorough research Jim before you come to conclusions , come up with logical (not emotional arguments) to support your clauses and then suggest deletion . Best to you. I hate the prospect of this becoming a personally quagmired warfield here, rather than basing its judgements upon legitimate facts and figures concerning the poet. Coolkeg908 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mild Delete and Comment Actually, we're not here to do the research for you. If certain editors want a page to exist, it's up to them to make sure that page meets the criteria for existing. This guy may be a great poet and you (and many others) may love his work, but all of that is 100% irrelevant. The question is simply: does his page contain enough information that is verifiable from reliable sources to prove his notability. As it stands, even the notability of the Limca_Book_of_Records is in question. Without something outside this house of cards to support notability, delete. DMacks 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Supporting my argument for Limca Book of Records India, which lists Parekh as a World Record Holder- Jim you mention above, or rather make a mockery of Limca Book of Records India which is run on the patronage of Coca-Cola India. I just felt like putting my points forward regards this. Each country, most of the developed countries have their own book of records. India is almost the world's largest population. It has a more than a billion indians. Limca Book of Records is the only book after the Guinness Book of World Records in the world, in official world rankings. For a verification of this, please do various searches and research on Limca Book and you will know. It represents the pride and honor of more than a billion Indians. It documents all its records very scrupulously and verifies each of them to excruciating limits of detail and authenticity, just like guinness book of world records. I have known many other book of records like Singapore Book of Records documenting records by people of Singapore, then there's a Malaysian book of records documentiing records by people of Malaysia. But out of all them countrywise, the Limca Book of Records India is the only of its kind next to Guinness, as its been in operations since the last 17 yrs in India. The longest standing record book to Guinness Book in the World. All other record books of other countries are just a thing of recent past, maximum 4 to 5 yrs in existence. Limca Book of Records India is available from all major online outlets and across the World. A close look at its contents, spanning nearly more than 500 pages in each of its annual edition, would reveal that it goes to great depths to authenticate all its records and record holders and gives them record breakers certificates just like Guinness Book does. How can you say that it doesnt verify its world records. For that matter you'd say that every other record book , including Guinness, just lists its records without verifying them. Now this is really absurd. There's no record book born like that. They are all authentic in their own respects, representing their countries and bringing out the best of their countrymen , record breaking feats, chronicled in a book. Parekh is listed twice in Limca Book of Records . His website shows his National Certificate of Honor for his records with the Book. These are great honors from a great record book, that he's achieved for his poetry. Limca Book of World Records, Record holders regularly appear on all television programmes, media, all across the world, just like Guinness Book. Such is the significance of this book in which Parekh has been listed for two records in the space of 1 year. Next time, before you propound forward an argument or make a mockery of a world class organization such as Limca book of records, please come up with accurate facts and figures, otherwise such is considered unethical emotionalism. I agree, that the Limca Book of Records article here at Wiki is a stub, I have myself tried and expanded it . And am still working on the same, with my research on various things . Best, I'd propose, you buy a copy of the Limca Book of Records from any reputed store on the Internet, such as ebay, or amazon or the likes. Once you have the physical edition in your hands, and have seen the facts figures documented, the painstaking depths to which they've been researched just like Guinness, then please lay your suggestions here. I already have the physical edition of the book with me and am therefore speaking my opinions of the same, after witnessing more than 10000 records covering multitudinal spectrums of arts/culture and human achievement by more than 10000 record holders across India and of Indian origin. The very fact that Nikhil Parekh is listed twice in the Limca book of records, is a matter of great honor for the world. More specifically, both his records in the book, if you closely observed are for very prestigious categories. One for receiving and writing the most number of letters to World Leaders and Organizations and the other for being India's only Eppie award winner. Both International caliber records in an equally adept Record book of Indian origin, functioning as the largest of its kind in the country, since last 17 yrs. Coolkeg908 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Having done a fair bit of research and perused WP:BIO I'm on the Weak Delete side of the fence. It's a weak one because there are sources, but they appear to be self-publicising in nature. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For the life of me, I cannot see any sources or things in his bio which are self publicizing. They are all facts assembled together to form a wiki sketch on him. Facts, just like assembled in several thousand other wiki articles of encyclopedic level. So what's wrong in highlighting the facts. And each wiki article for that matter appears a bit self publicizing, as it portrays the achievement of notable people/organizations and things. Its a strong keep, not weak delete. Unless, someone brings to light something unauthenticated in this article, or conflicting with the facts and figures involved, I dont think there's any reason to delete. Coolkeg908 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, no opinion at this time, but I removed some links that didn't comply with WP:EL, tagged it for copyediting, and tagged every claim that needs a source. If kept this article needs a lot of work to get to the point of being a decent encyclopedia article.--Isotope23 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Yes, Nikhil Pareh gets twice as many Google hits as, say, Yannis Ritsos. However, they appear to be mainly the result of self-promotion on a staggering, mind-bogging scale. There may be an achievement of sorts here, but it does not make him a notable poet. Stammer 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Opinion-Well when a person is famous, and when you google search him or search on him on virtually any search engine, virtually lacs of results come up. I have known poets better than Parekh, who have earned accolades and when searched upon in search engines, they yield lacs of results. So what, if Parekh yields lacs of results when searched. Thats thanks to his accolades. I've never seen anyone put in, what you call extra effort to make more search engine results. If you're well spread, in this case as his poems are published at countless websites, its ostensible that the search results would be mind boggling. Nothing wrong with that. Doesnt prove that he's self promoting. There are thousands of writers inferior/superior to him, who yield better results in search. That doesnt imply that they self promote or are bogus. Just that their work is well spread and well recognized, well affiliated and networked globally, that's why the mind boggling number of search results. Its perfectly OK. As far providing resources and authentication to all his awards a simple click to his website would pacify all queries. All certificates, original documentation and everything to the minutest of detail is listed here at his site, in the awards section of it. Also there are countless other places on the internet where the same can be verified in their original forms. Mind you, even the biggest names out there in the industry, who're writers/poets and creative writers of all kinds self promote, so in the first case there's nothing wrong with that. And, if there are lacs of search results to your name, that doesnt necessarily imply that you self promote. It is just that you are well networked/affiliated and published across the globe in countless magazines and websites, that they show up. The more famous an individual, the more are the search results on him. So what's odd. Why be envious or bring the emotional quotient again. There's no need to compare if Parekh has more search results to his name than his other contemporaries, or lesser than them. That's not the issue. Issue is verification and meeting WIKI standards. And research yields on Parekh, all that is said in his bio. Coolkeg908 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. He has a very enthusiastic promotion department - as evident in this thread - but it's too bad that no reliable sources attesting to his notability under WP:BIO have been forthcoming. Sandstein 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Opinion on your downright rudeness-Who gave you the right to call me a promotion department. I am just a fellow wiki editor like you here , authenticating information and leading to the most trusted sources to articles. Its downright rude and contemptuous of you to call me promotion department. I am just here and doing my best I can to authenticate information and provide as much editing as possible to the article, improving it and leading to the best sources of verification. If you have a comment to leave you are most welcome, or for that matter a counter argument. But this is no way of answering back and labeling someone as lower than you. We’re all equal rights here as wiki editors. Please don’t denigrate your fellow people who are also and equally trying their best to do their job. I hope you get my point. So lets stick to the credibility of this article and its verifications. And for verification of all of Parekh’s records and achievements his website as well countless other sources on the Internet can be looked upon . At a click verifications can be yielded. Those who say, things cannot be verified are being lacking information and not taking the pains to verify and research further. Anyways, please curb now from any name calling or rudeness. Thanks. Coolkeg908 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well. I didn't name any names - but if you do not want to be called a promotion department, it would probably help if your contributions also included at least some edits not related to the promotion of Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete [Change of mind to delete - see below] He's gaining notice as a poetic blogger (rather than as a literary poet recognised by the establishment), but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO with independent sources. Things like a two-line mention by Reuters in Oddly Enough [42] don't go far enough! Mereda 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in that it mostly fails [WP:BIO]]. That's not to say that I disagree with Coolkeg908, but that the sources are almost all self-promoting, and the whole point of notability is that OTHERS note him independant of his own self-promotion efforts. Also, I must say that Coolkeg908 is taking this waaaaaaaaaaay too personally, and everyone needs to cool off. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Those books of his are on a vanity press. ergot 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Opinion Poetry Books-His poetry books are not even mentioned in his biography. There is just an external link to them. Most poets, even the award winning ones here at Wiki self publish. And no, they are not vanity presses where he's published. Those places if you investigate and research further are major print on demand digitial marketplaces. The author doesnt pay a penny to publish. Its all technology oriented and making latest use of technology. Also this is only his list of publishers who've published him in book form. If you see the magazines and websites of the world that have published him, individually for his poems--then you'd come to know that there are names like the Commonwealth Magazine involved which are the best in the world today. Research, research and more research before basing your opinions. There's no point getting after someone without details, facts and figures. I iterate again. Books are just a part of his biography. There are several other aspects to it as well, like winning the EPPIE award for best poetry which is one of the most prestigious awards in the world today awarded to ebooks. Then he's there in the Limca Book of Records, refer to my discussion to that above. He's also featured in the top 10 rankings of Preditors and Editors readers poll, again a very prestigious readers poll in the world, which is also listed at Wiki. There's just too much to this poet as far as credibility is concerned and doesnt make a strong candidature for delete. Coolkeg908 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. According to the page, the EPPIE award is barely "to him" at all, and virtually all the other things are unsubstantiated. Without external citations, that information can't be considered reliable at all. If there are awards and things that bolster this poet's claim to faim, now is the time for to prove it by adding info, including verifiable and reliable external citations, to the page. DMacks 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reaffirming my Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, obviously fails WP:BIO with the sources, as pointed out, being self publicizing. If sources can be provided of awards and mentions that are not of this type please add them to the article and comment on my talk page and I will give my input a second look over. --NuclearZer0 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Coolkeg's behaviour rings alarm bells. --SandyDancer 01:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i think this article is fine...i enjoyed it throughly...

• Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----),

We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry. Vizjim 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Reaffirming weak delete. Without evidence that the Eppie award decision was substantially to him or based on his contribution to the compilation, I too see no notability as a poet. I don't think "first X ethnicity to in any way contribute to Y thing" is a point of more global renown. Which leaves the corresponding-with-leaders record. It's an interesting acchievement, but still fairly limited how truly notable that acchievement is in terms of WP:BIO for the person. DMacks 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Still weak Delete Upon inspection (see [43]) the "corresponding-with-leaders record" boils down to polite routine replies by their secretaries. The guy's persistence however is somewhat extraordinary. Stammer 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wow, I hadn't even considered "responses" could include just "thanks for writing" form letters. Yeah, that's not so notable-sounding at all. DMacks 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete [Changed from weak delete] One EPPIE, for a piece with multiple authors, isn't impressive. Or does anyone want to argue for comprehensive coverage of all EPPIE winners? :) Mereda 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reaffirming my above Delete per DMacks. Sandstein 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• For the avoidance of doubt, I am still saying delete. --SandyDancer 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reaffirming my above Delete; world record for writing a bunch of letters to heads of state? That just makes him a spammer. ergot 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Even stronger delete I strongly doubt that everyone who holds a Guinness World Record has an article, much less the holder of some regional "world" record. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 02:04, 8 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 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas

Delete: The article contains original research, flamebait material, NPOV violation and one sided quotes. Buddhism and Hinduism and Dharmic religions already cover this in detail. Freedom skies 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Title connotes superiority of Buddhadharma in comparison to other Dharmas. Merge relevant content (if any) to Buddhism and Hinduism, Dharmic religions and/or Jainism and Hinduism. Sfacets 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete wouldn't envisage anyone looking for information on this subject would type in this title so the redirect isn't very useful and there are Buddha Dharma and Buddhadharma redirects already. Most of the useful information has been copied to other articles, so I don't think we are deleting useful content. Addhoc 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this article has an interesting history. It was originally entitled Buddhadharma and was usually a redirect to Buddhism. Then, User:Vapour made it an independent article about Buddhism and other dharmic religions, after which he moved it to its current location. Then, I changed Buddhadharma back into a redirect to Buddhism. Anyway, I never saw much point in having this article around.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Duplicate of Buddhism and Hinduism and a potential Neo-Buddhist POV fork.Hkelkar 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete : It must be done at the earliest. Buddhism is actually a protestant offshoot of Hinduism and may have remained under Hinduism's umbrella (like Sikhism & Jainism), had it not been for the fact that it is the principle religion in Thailand, Sri-Lanka, Japan, Cambodia, etc.IAF

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ishi Yama Ryu

Non-notable - a single school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRehse (talk • contribs)

• Delete - only 582 ghits. Unverifiable, no reliable sources found. MER-C 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Am I reading the same article as you guys? Is read a modern sword style with a firm grounding in tradition. What school? Or is that in reference to the style? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification By one school I mean one dojo, one teacher. There is some controvery concerning background of the main teacher on the sword forums (apparantly there isn't much).Peter Rehse 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wwryxz 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It dies by its own sword. [89 unique Ghits. Sayonara. Ohconfucius 02:17, 6 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. kingboyk 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Tye Pratt

I have proposed that this article should be deleted for failure to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. --TommyBoy 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unless improved. Addhoc 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While his death was a sad thing for everyone who knew him, he is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --SunStar Net 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. Vizjim 12:58, 2 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 to delete. W.marsh 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of autological words

List of autological words was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autological words.

• Delete or Revise to subsume all trivial categories into general headings (per Arvedui's suggestion). This list is meaningless, since hundreds of extremely trivial words can fit into this category. For example non-human is on the list. Infinite words can go in along those lines, all of them trivial, e.g. non-automotive, etc. It's almost as bad as having a list of rational numbers or words that start with S.

If the list is kept and revised, I think that the whole "depending on context" section should go; it's just as trivial (Sung-if sung) and doesn't really say much about the words themselves.JudahH 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) revised JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

no. the "depending on context" section is good. in that context, they are then autological, they are valid examples. but i dont really see how "non-human" qualifies as a discription of a word. thats like saying "gill-less" is a description of a human. so then non-human also cannot be selfdescriptive. "Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word", suggested by Lecontejohn should do, since only that is effectively discriptive--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's exactly what I mean--the plethora of valid but trivial examples is exactly what I think is the problem with this list. JudahH 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The adjectives here are actually used to refer to words. "Non-human" and other trivial examples are not generally used to refer to words. This is an interesting and useful list. - Sikon 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-human is currently an actual word on the list, as is inanimate. If you wanted to exclude the infinite trivial examples of that sort, that might make the list more interesting, but it would be hard to justify that, since they do conform to the definition of autological, despite being utterly trivial.JudahH 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the list as it stands is composed mainly of trivial examples, or that it will inevitably come to be dominated by them, despite the fact that virtually infinite trivial examples may exist. If you're concerned about the latter happening, then it would be enough to add a single-line entry to cover something like "all negative adjectives, such as non-purple, etc..." or perhaps add a short intro suggesting that people try to keep the entries "interesting". Currently the list is a concise, useful, effective and perfectly harmless demonstration of an obscure linguistic phenomenon, which is composed of far more interesting examples than not, and I think killing the article to save it from potential triviality is like killing a patient to save him from possibly catching the flu. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. While cute and interesting, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete more interesting than the endless parade of "Lists of randomly cool shit", but still not encyclopedic. Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this list is any less encyclopedic than, say, the Lists of career and job titles (and no I'm not calling for that one to be deleted either!). Lists in general can always be argued to be "un-encyclopedic" by themselves, but they still serve some useful functions (or why would people want to write them?), for example in collecting illustrative examples of a phenomenon without bogging down the actual article on the topic. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft. AgentPeppermint 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no one would search for this meshach 19:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, you can't possibly know what all people would or wouldn't search for (or link to!). --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, there is a link to it from Grelling-Nelson paradox.JudahH 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word - i.e. remove category errors. Lecontejohn 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  i think that would be a prerequisite for something to actually qualify as discriptive, hence also as autological.--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong/Speedy Keep per the previous VfD discussion. I don't see that anything has changed in the 8 months between then and now, and the result back then was overwhelmingly to Keep. Listcruft rationale was soundly rejected in that discussion as well. --Arvedui 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that anything has changed; the problem with the earlier nomination is that it was nominated by someone who voted keep; therefore the case for deletion was never made to begin with. For what it's worth, I thought this was a useful list as well, until I realized how trivial the category autological was (basically all negative descriptions are autological, for a start). That is what I see as the important point, and it wasn't brought up at all in the previous discussion. JudahH 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you may be giving the act of nomination too much credit here... While the first nomination was made pre-emptively, it still resulted in a virtually unanimous vote to Keep, and I doubt it was the lack of a preamble calling the list pointless and trivial that determined that outcome--indeed many of the reasons people have voted Delete in this round were explicitly refuted in the last (listcruft, pointlessness, no-search, etc). Again, I grant that there are many trivial examples to be found, but it's easy enough (trivial, even!) to include them in general terms so as not to bog down the list as a whole while keeping the interesting part available for those who might want it. While this round of voting looks to me like No Concensus leaning towards Delete, I'm disappointed by how little weight is being given to the really overwhelming Keep vote granted earlier to what is essentially the identical list. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point about including them in general terms. That might actually be a good way to solve it. I'll change me vote. (Let just add, though, that it's not only negatives that are trivial. Practically the whole "depending on contexts" is, as well.) If you take out all the trivial examples, there isn't much left of the list... JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. `'mikkanarxi 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• definite Keep, though probably it needs to be revised or mover to the wiktionaries apendices (as sugested when it was nominated for deletion before). its either an examples list, or a wiktionary thing. on the other hand, there are probably much more silly and trivial lists on wikipedia. and the risk of triviality on this page is no arguement, as that doesnt make the artical itself less desirable or encyclopedic.--Lygophile 14:23, 9 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 (a7) - Yomangani^talk 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madis Pink

Non notable bio. Zero Google hits GilliamJF 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 12:52, 2 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 10:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PARANOiA

When proposing the article for a merge, there was no response. This article seems to get very little attention, and is otherwise uninformative in WikiPedia. Therefore, I am putting this article up for deletion. Such things may only be known by people in the Dance Dance Revolution world, and not necessarily for the common WikiPedian.WaltCip 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's nothing to merge; Tracklists are already in each DDR version (or should be). However, having a niche focus isn't a reason for deletion; it's if that niche focus doesn't garner the attention of reliable sources, that the article should be deleted. ColourBurst 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trebor 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wwryxz 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing really to say about them; frankly I think that the MAX series articles should be deleted too. « _SCHLAGWERK^{Talk to me!} 08:33, 5 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--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Omar Faruk

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Omarfaruk (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for the above. SteveLamacq43 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trebor 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE One of the references, an article dated April 11, 2006 which has only a passing reference to Faruk, says everything we need to know for this AfD:

"Mohammed Omar Faruk, 17, a high school junior who participated in one of NFTE's summer camp programs in Bedford-Stuyvesant, has since established several Internet businesses, including BlueStream Corp. , a Web services firm, and DesiFlames, a music site targeting the South Asian market.... Mohammed says he and a business partner have netted about $4,000 from their sites. He hopes to attend Babson College and thinks his experience with NFTE will help him achieve his dreams."

Just not notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Maybe in ten or twenty years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. OfficeGirl 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP-- THE ABOVE REFERS TO A CERTIN EVENT HELD BY NFTE(03 NOV 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.195.136 (talk • contribs) 12:21, November 3, 2006
• Note: It seems another incarnation of this article has already been created at Omar faruk. Maybe it should be included in this discussion. DismasMama 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  The other article is now a redirect. I should have been smart enough to do that when I saw it the first time. GRBerry 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY and STRONG DELETE for both articles! Ozzykhan 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn. ITAQALLAH 14:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity meshach 19:21, 4 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. -- Steel 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT characters on The Simpsons

POV list mostly consists of unfounded claims and wild speculation, finding all sorts of obscure references to support the claim; see Akbar and Jeff section SteveLamacq43 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Chock full of OR and not really an encyclopedic topic. Wickethewok 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not for original research, and it is also NOT|not a crystal ball that can see into fictional character's hearts. -bobby 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Full of OR and similar articles have been deleted for the same reason. Also very little in terms of citations -- in what episode is it said that Springfield has a factory populated by gay men, for example? 23skidoo 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very one sided article, with far too much assuming and speculating. DavyJonesLocker 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Who Cares!? It really staggers me that we have to make such a big thing of homosexuality. Jcuk 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to much WP:OR, lacks analysis.-- danntm ^T _C 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There's already a List of characters from The Simpsons. Many (if not most) of those characters have their own articles, which can be included in Category:Fictional LGBT characters when appropriate. --Masamage 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Trebor 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 3 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Ragan

csd/a7 vanity page Tengwarian 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as i don't see any obvious sign that the page was created by the subject. On the face of it it looks like a fairly valid typographical stub, albeit one that perhaps needs beefing up a little. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per OBM. -Jcbarr 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - With respect, it's the responsibility of the page creator to show notability, otherwise Wikipedia becomes Who's Who. If there are citations that can justify this page, let's include them, otherwise I think it falls under 'non-notability' per csd/a7. Plenty of people design fonts. Tengwarian 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To me, vanity is a distinct claim from nn, so perhaps you clouded the argument to start. 2nd, while this is a topic I know nothing about and have even less interest in, he is referenced in 2 other articles, so notability is at least a debateable point. -Jcbarr 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Xe didn't write "internal links". Xe wrote "citations". That means cited sources to demonstrate that our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied. Neither the article nor this discussion currently contain any. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, his work is solid, his clients equally so, this professions historically gives credit to apprentice work, and he has gone well beyond that. O, just realizing that I have been accused of writing this article about myself. I am not jesse ragan, do not know him, I am Jim Hood, a desigenr,and teacher. I woonder in this world do we get to face our accuser? Who has accused me of writing about myself? CApitol3 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting that you were the subject, but rather that the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. There are thousands of professionals who do good work, but to include them all is to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If there is something to distinguish this person from the many other people at work in this field, such as a critical review in an established publication, I would ask that you include it in the listing. Tengwarian 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Appears the tack has now changed from suggesting it is a vanity article created by subject, to now not being appropriately notable. Any chance you know this type designer? I Agree there are, thanks to software like Fontographer, countless numbers of people who could produce a technically functioning type. Those people do not recieve places on the American Institute of Graphic Arts' website. The subject's work is clearly acessible by links. CApitol3 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith here. My use of the phrase "vanity page" is consistent with its definition here, and was not a personal attack. I do not know him (her?) personally, perhaps you do? Such accomplished contemporary American font designers as David Berlow, Cyrus Highsmith, and Sumner Stone have not merited Wikipedia entries, let alone Robert Hunter Middleton, Bruce Rogers, or Chauncey Griffith. And yes, I can go ahead and create these pages. But I still cannot see the significance of distinguishing this person over these others. With respect, I don't believe that a single award given by a trade organization to thousands of designers annually meets the standard for notability. At this point I think it's best that we leave this decision for the editors, since the Wikipedia docs state that there is "no consensus regarding notability." Yours respectfully, Tengwarian 07:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • An additional apology, GearedBull. I see further down on that page that "the use of the word 'vanity' is discouraged in deletion discussions." Please chalk this up to the awkward elbows of an old academic - I did not mean to offend! Tengwarian 07:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

O, no harm done, but I'm disappointed that you continue to suggest I might know the subject. Please assume good faith when I have here twice, once on the article's discussion page, and once on your own discussion page professed I do not know the subject, and that I do not even know the subject's gender (though I would guess male given the ratio of type designers), or where s/he is geographically located (NY is my best guess, though Seattle comes up in some online returns). What I am more familiar with is the subject's work, which is what I based my article upon. Agree there should be a host of other articles: Robert Granjon, a longer bio for Anton Janson, more on Tschichold, and yes, I suppose Cyrus may have achieved more thus far, etc. But I don't see any precedence for thresholds (writing the big guys before the lessers). Wikipedians write about what they are more familiar with. In my own case here typfaces I have seen and worked with. Neil Macmillan's An A-Z of Type Designers, though not giving Ragan a full, separate entry mentions him as a co-creator of several typefaces. I will add that to the refs. The AIGA is not a commercial organization, this isn't an industry publication or award, pardon me if you already know that the AIGA is more akin to the American Institute of Architects than a commercial trade organization like Printing Industries of America, where the organization has a not very oblique reason for citing and awarding professionals: business. best, Jim CApitol3 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per OBM --Arvedui 00:55, 8 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 to Name-dropping. Yomangani^talk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namechecking

Procedural. Paul Cyr (talk · contribs) proposed deletion with the {{prod}} template, but this article has had a previous nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namechecking; full disclosure: the original AfD was started by me, again after Paul Cyr's proposed deletion was reverted) and shouldn't be deleted via the prod mechanism. Notwithstanding the procedural nature of this nomination, I recommend Delete as a nonnotable neologism with no sources or references. Powers ^T 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• article about a man who started a company to count brand-name dropping in hip-hop radio, Associated Press article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, Detroit News article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, article labelling 50 Cent the "biggest brand name dropping rapper of 2005", article in The Daily Trojan about companies paying rappers to drop brand names. ISBN 0313261695 has 22 pages, an entire chapter, on "Brand names in the lyrics of American Hit Songs". — The only reason that this article has stood without any citations for 6 months is that in all of those months no-one appears to have spent the 5 minutes with Google Web that I spent to find those. If something cites no sources, spend the time to look for some before coming to AFD. Do the research when nominating articles for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment please do not confuse the populace by making a recommendation in a "procedural" nomination. - crz crztalk 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone wants to add proper sources then I'll change my vote. However it's been over a year (not 6 months as Uncle G has said) without sources. Paul Cyr 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was counting from the first of the several times that you nominated the article for deletion. You already have several potential sources now. Go put them in the article yourself. Deletion won't do that, and it doesn't require administrator tools to improve the article in the way that you want it to be improved. You're a Wikipedia editor. Edit! It no doubt took you more time to repeatedly nominate the article for deletion all of those times over the months than the 5 minutes it took with Google Web to find what is cited above. Uncle G 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that it invalidates your point, but do you mind telling me why you haven't simply added them yourself since you were the one who found the sources? Seems that would have been the simplest solution. And actually, after looking closer, it seems that none of those sources even contain the words "name checking" or "namechecking". It's starting to seem as just a neologism, and Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Paul Cyr 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read words 2 to 5 of the article text. Uncle G 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And none of the sources show that. 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Please read your comment that was being replied to, and then read words 2 to 5 of the article text, again, to see what the reply is. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The second and third articles looked identical. The fourth I choose not to register to see. The fifth went 404 on me. The first two articles both used the phrase brand name dropping, so if the article remains it should be moved to that name. But merging into Name-dropping would be just as good - and since it is mostly done already, quite easy to do. GRBerry 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that MediaPost requires a log-in if one isn't being referred to the article by Google, as I was. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Name-dropping. It seems to me that there is enough verifiable information for an article, but the problem is in the title. The articles provided by Uncle G would work in nicely over there; in fact there already exists a section that describes the phenomenon. (And I was about to mention the "linky no worky" before GRBerry beat me to it) --RoninBK_ETC 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that I've fixed the Daily Trojan link. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge w Redirect per RoninBK --Arvedui 00:52, 8 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 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Witchel

Non-notable. The flash mob computing article mentions John but there is not much more that needs to be said, doesn't justify its own Wikipedia bio on those grounds alone. Stbalbach 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All relevant info already appears at flash mob computing. Otherwise, subject is NN. Caknuck 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Trebor 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough notability to justify separate article. OfficeGirl 02:17, 3 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 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Grimaldi

disputed PROD and speedy deletion. bio for NN-trader, featured in who's who delete DesertSky85451 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Trebor 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

bio for NN-trader?????????? he is a member of the royal family of monaco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gheinz01 (talk • contribs) at 00:36 on 3 November 2006.

• Delete - As a non-notable trader, AND as non-notable minor royal --Aim Here 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. He gets no points for being a prominent Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor (another name for salesman of Life Insurance & Investment products), no hits on the MS website which is cited for "David Grimaldi". Notability is not inherited. Ohconfucius 02:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

david a. grimaldi is a member of the monaco royals!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.163.153 (talk • contribs) at 13:31 on 6 November 2006, and who keeps removing the AFD notice.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Informational management

Topic appears to be non-notable, original research, produced almost entirely by one editor who has provided no references. Ronz 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not a well-recognized topic within management. No subsequent research by other scholars in the area. Rather, the discussion about IaM was not really mainstream at any time and related issues have been picked up. I will also note that neither of the references were peer-reviewed. It is not good encyclopedia policy to include such articles.

...it is very topical in the UK and SA and has academic acceptance. The references are public domain. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It says right at the bottom that it's original research. --TheOtherBob 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

...poor wording since corrected. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, vaguely defined. Google hits for the term did not seem concretely related to the content of this article. Dryman 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

...12,900 hits/articles show the term is entering common use.Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although the IaM concept is based on 'orginal' research, what subject isn't? At least at the beginning. Claude Shannon had to start somewhere. The original research for IaM has taken place over 30 years, several continents, many countries and countless companies. It is the result of work by several specialist devotees to the subject of information and has found special favour among all of the original commercial and academic users. I have little doubt that is becoming a key issue to all organisations that are embracing the new philosophies. Due to the nature of the developments and issues of intellectual property rights during the developments (trade marks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc), little public domain documentation was available until now. This will now change because many who have been exposed to Informational Management want to know its difference from Information Management right from the start, hence Wikipedia. The IaM concept as described is not proprietary. References that include rationales and details for IaM that are public domain include: 'Brain' 1975, and 'The future of life and intelligence' 1986? by Victor Serebriakoff - both available from Amazon.com (I will double check dates and add publishers shortly). I will also refine and add more detail as time permits. Considering the excitement it is causing in enterprise / information architecture environments such as TOGAF and X.25, I would have thought the entry would have created a desire to know more, not a desire to consign it to ignominy... Prof 7 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search of "Serebriakoff 'Informational management'" returns no results. --Ronz 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

...this term coined after the books were published although the books had the subject as their main theme. See discussion over suitable terms. Prof 7 09:19, 8 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 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R Valdez

A blatant piece of public relations/advertising about a politician. Peter O. (Talk) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the articles Undecided Party and Valdezian {strike edit by Satori Son} are added to this nomination. The former should redirect to Swing vote if necessary. Peter O. (Talk) 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Valdezian was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdezian and has been deleted. -- Satori Son 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• del nn clown of politics. `'mikkanarxi 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both as political WP:ADVERT for insufficiently notable subject per WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 06:26, 8 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 - no reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources are found to prove notability, but since no attempt to add references has been made during the course of the AFD it currently doesn't make the grade. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swami Sai Premananda

Seems to be a promotional piece. No independent sources given, nothing much in incoming links. Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Swami Sai Premananda. Delete kingboyk 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent sources listed and article reads like a promo, but he has 326 ghits, so he might be notable enough (many of the ghits are listings or point to his own website). I might not support deletion of an article on him which was less of a vanity piece, and which included independent sources … but this article is a clear delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I understand that this article does not currently meet the requirements of the admins of Wikipedia. I would like to bring the article up to the required standard. The reason is because I do know Swami Sai Premananda and attend his free programs. As I see it, he is a public figure in Toronto offering services to the community, therefore they need an independant source of information about him. Before deleting, can someone give advice or direct me to information on bringing the article up to standard. -- talesh 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You should edit the article to show why he meets the standards of WP:BIO by providing reliable sources. Sandstein 21:49, 2 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, kingboyk 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. lacks notability. `'mikkanarxi 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO for lack of WP:RS. Sandstein 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Message - Currently we do not have a large number of reliable sources online to support our article. As such, we understand your wish to remove this article. If it comes to that, then we would abide by the rules of the Wikipedia administrators. However, when mainstream press reviews of Swamiji's book are available, or more online references from reliable sources show up, I believe that the requirements for notability will be fulfilled; at that time, we may or may not readd an entry on Swami Sai Premananda. Please let me know if this is a suitable solution for all. Thank you for keeping our article on your site thus far. talesh 21:34, 6 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, so kept by default - Yomangani^talk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autocunnilingus

del since first nomination a year ago nothing has been done to prove that this is not original research. `'mikkanarxi 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Uncited, with several POV statements as well. Compare with the male counterpart autofellatio which includes substantially more content. Suggest redirecting to autofellatio, and maybe adding a paragraph to that article about this subject -- but only if this isn't just a case of someone speculating "well, if guys can do it, what about women?" 23skidoo 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN, OR. Edison 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Vfd, first Afd. Autocunnilingus seems like a myth, but it's well-known one and notable enough. The article is pretty well written and isn't trying to state that the practice of this is common or even possible. Compare to gerbilling. This has a Wikipedia article in six languages and the topic gets a lot of Google hits (autocunnilingus, "auto cunnilingus", selfcunnilingus, "self cunnilingus" etc.). Prolog 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Prolog. Also, if we have an article on Autofellatio, it seems only reasonable that we would have one on the female counterpart. Yin and Yang if you will. -bobby 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment Suggest it be built up as a sub-section on Oral sex for a time. If it's long enough then it can be budded off into an article on its own. If not the content's already part of an article and doesn't need to be merged into something. Win-win. Sockatume 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. According to this guy, who ought to know, I have been searching for a long time for proof of that. I belong to a couple of groups on the internet who are also searching for it. We as a collective have yet to find any proof. I am positive that it can be done because if I were a woman I could reach. But yet there aren't any photographs out there other than some altered ones. I performed life-saving surgery on donkey punch but this has less cultural currency even though it's probably more "popular" in pornographic terms. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Prolog, who nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Prolog. -- Bpmullins 14:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article's picture is a wonderful sight. It has been saved to my hard drive. (I know this is not a valid reason, but I am still voting) Anomo 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, your voting is an excellent reflection on your seriousness about Wikipedia. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The keepers-voters didn't do anything to disprove the major accusation: the article is original research and hence against wikipedia policies. Mukadderat 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' but Clean-up --SandyDancer 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable topic, possible or not. I am somewhat amused to find myself agreeing with Badlydrawnjeff in this discussion. --Improv 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Have any of you "keep" voters looked for any sources? There is one source on this article, and you may not have realized it, but that source does not mention autocunnilingus. Or sex, period. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That suggests we need to get more references, not delete the article. Sockatume 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Prolog and agree with Sockatume's comment above --Arvedui 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Equal rights for womyn! -- Roman Czyborra 02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--we kept it the last time, and I see no reason to go through this again.
• Delete - Reviewing the VfD and AfD, all I see is a bunch of keep votes based on ... google hits. No sources. No PROOF that this can actually be done. Loads of hoax pictures. In the VfD the main reason repeated for keep was that this was a 'real, growing article'. It's a stub with a CARTOON drawing of a fantasy act that men want to believe in. Without FIRM proof, this fails WP:V and WP:OR. Voting 'clean up' or 'expand' is pointless, since nothing -- nothing -- has been done to do either since the VfD or 1st AfD. If this was about something from Scientology , or about Creationism, or something controversial that people hated the idea of, none of you would be voting keep based on the merits of the article. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't really care if it's possible or not, it could be included as a hoax/urban legend/whatever. But I see no reliable sources even saying that... just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, forums and other classic signs that this is something people with internet access and time to kill care about, but no one else apparently. This has been tagged as needing sourcing for 8 months and no one could find anything... I'd close this as a delete but I'll leave it to another admin, this has serious WP:V issues that need to be considered. --W.marsh 17:18, 9 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 (half notable?) - Yomangani^talk 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valdezian

del nonnotable political neologism. `'mikkanarxi 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see 59 google hits, with no extra options. [44]. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Half notable. Doesn't really explain what it actually is in a specific manner though. Spawn Man 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V; article provides no reputable, reliable sources and I was unable to locate any. Almost every source I found used the term as a descriptor for something from the city of Valdez, Alaska. Also see the R Valdez related article up for deletion. -- Satori Son 06:25, 8 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 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra-Renaissance art movement and related articles

A group of articles started by User:Sowff.

• Ultra-Renaissance art movement, 507 Google results -- none indicate notability, many are unrelated.
• Tom Marchione, 228 Google results, most of which are about an anthropologist employed at USAID
• Roy Zornow, 151 Google results, most of which are about Roy Zornow, an information architect
• Brently Comstock, two Google results, both from ultra-renaissance.com
• Mike Wrathell, 429 Google results, none of which indicate notability.

• User:Sowff, who self-identifies as Mike Wrathell, has provided some references about the article on himself. I will check these references and if necessary, create a separate AfD. For now, I withdraw the article Mike Wrathell from this list. However, nomination for other articles remains. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• weak Keep Ultra-Renaissance art movement and merge the members into it. Then add cite. It is mentioned in an award-winning documentary and is mentioned in a few other places on the web. It is hard to judge where this type of thing stands in history because it looks like they are probably using irony of a sort to make themselves look less than they might be. We need citations and preferably a list of exhibitions. No one asked for the article to be improved before it went for afd, that seems problematic to me.--Buridan 13:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference to this "art movement" being mentioned in an "award winning documentary" is found only on the website of the movement. The "few other places on the web" include blogs (some of which belong to these "ultra-renaissance" artists[45]), forums where these artists introduce themselves asking people to visit their website[46] and websites, where anybody can register and create a profile[47][48]. Also, many of the results are not related to this particular movement[49], [50] (If I am wrong, please correct me by providing some credible links). The "no one asked for the article to be improved" argument is baseless, as the article was taggged for want of references[51], but the tag was removed by the author, who has provided only one source: the website of the "art movement". Also, may I please ask you to explain what do you mean by "using irony of a sort to make themselves look less than they might be"? utcursch | talk 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep Although many of the links appear to be self-referencing, I tend to give them the benefit of doubt; To give the article body, the separate artists need to be merged into it; as a whole ring of articles on this theme is too much Arnoutf 13:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the article doesn't say much about the 'art' and explains neither the "ultra" nor gives a clue about connection to Renaissance. A catchy name ... well, I googled that someone already invented term "hyper-renaissance". Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per WP:V, which clearly states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Satori Son 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all unless Reliably sourced. User:Sowff self-identifies as Mike Wrathell, thus making this all autobiographical and vanity. (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ultra-Renaissance art movement) User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike Wrathell references of some note added to Ultra-Renaissance and his entry, including favorable review of "the king of pluto" on FilmThreat.com, cast member of a new film called "W," and Juror's Statement from an international art contest, with art elsewhere on the site of Upstream People Gallery.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) (creator of the articles)

Hi! Mike, None of the references provided by you have any information about Ultra-Renaissance art movement. Some of them are about the documentary film The King of Pluto, which according to you mentions the movement. Since you've provided some references about Mike Wrathell, I've removed from the list of articles nominated for deletion for now. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 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, kingboyk 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless credible sources are provided. --kingboyk 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, this smells like self-promotion - not the mention the lack of reliable sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• strong Keep Marcel Duchamp once said, "Art is whatever the artist says it is." I have provided enough notable references to show that I am a true artist and it is my right as an artist, like Duchamp, to be a member of an art movement. Thus, The Ultra-Renaissance, is also valid by all known standards of art history. Dada, or Dadaism, was created and coined by the artists within the art movement. Likewise is the case for The Ultra-Renaissance. Let me ask you this, you naysayers: are you not tired of not having heard of any new art movements since Pop Art? It has been nearly 50 years since an art movement of note was on the scene. I am trying to help the world by injecting art into the public discourse. I have achieved some notability with my art, as acknowledged, even, by some people here. It seems only fair and logical that my art movement should also be accepted here, much like Linus and his blanket. Can you really separate Linus from his blanket and still have the internationally-known character? Or Schroeder from his piano? The accusation that my entries are mere self-promotion after I supplied references of note seems to be hyperbolic. Art is an important thing, and if I am attempting to bring art more into the public consciousness, I do not find that the act of an ego maniac. I assure you "The Ultra-Renaissance" was mentioned in "the king of pluto," and would be happy to mail Wikipedia a complimentary DVD of the documentary. A work of art I made with the help of fellow Ultra-Renaissance artist Tom Marchione was exhibited at 4 Star Gallery in Indianapolis, IN titled "Ultra-Renaissance Fountain," which is an homage to Marcel Duchamp. By the way, B. W. C., Roy Zornow, and Tom Marchione are all present on the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival page for "the king of pluto" so I hope that qualifies as a reference of note for them as well as for me and The Ultra-Renaissance itself. I understand that you need to see references and will try in the future to see that more references are generated for Ultra-Renaissance art. However, there are enough to justify keeping this "ring" on your site. The Ultra-Renaissance is a valid, living art movement. I just made a work of art last night with Tom Marchione, in fact. The Ultra-Renaissance is also present in "W, or Strange Things Begin To Happen When A Meteor Crashes In The Arizona Desert" in a scene where I am thrown into a spaceship bound for Pluto. The two cowboys who toss me in the ship at the orders of "W" are wearing Ultra-Renaissance tee shirts with the name of the movement on them as well as an image drawn by myself and Brently Comstock, aka, B. W. C. Sowff 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Note: The user Sowff self-identifies as Mike Wrathell (founder of the "art movement"), and is creator of the article.

• I've already provided explanation here. utcursch | talk 10:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-promotion. WP is not a place to obtain notability. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel and WP:Auto. --TheOtherBob 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• ? I do not know how the issue of seeking notability has come up with a valid contemporary art movement. Are we to assume that all contemporary things are to be deleted since they may wish to obtain notability via WP? It seems like a downright blind acceptance of cynicism. I can appreciate a cynic, and always got a kick out Diogenes saying to Alexander, "Get out of my sunlight!" but I am also mindful of Nietzsche's axiom, "Greatness is being both cynical and innocent." If WP is to be a valid resource, I do not think the deletion of all contemporary references is in WP's best interest. WP's greatness is its very contemporary validity. To delete The Ultra-Renaissance art movement seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Sowff 04:17, 8 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'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Dyall

Non-notable Australian student in a relationship with actor Gary Sweet. -- Longhair\^talk 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Nadia is a well known Australian celebrity. As well as appearing in TV shows including Neighbours and Stingers, she has appeared in magazines including Australian Women's Weekly, FHM and New Idea. She is regularly featured in Newspaper articles in the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSmgmt (talk • contribs)

• Please provide a source for your claim that this person is a "well known Australian celebrity" because there are several Australians here who have never heard of her. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently nn other than for relationship to actor. Merge content into Gary Sweet article, and then delete. -- The Anome 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hmmm, what does "GSmgmt" stand for? Gary Sweet's Management? Anyway, seems non-notable in the acting field - bit parts it looks like. Regular appearance in gossip columns do not maketh notable media references. --Canley 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Google search for her name returns precisely 13 unique hits (two of which are here on Wikipedia)[52]. Not a good indicator - even a fairly minor celebrity should produce a few mentions on celebrity gossip sites and the like. Merge any useful, verifiable content into Gary Sweet per The Anome. ~Matticus ^T_C 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google News comes up with nothing see [53]. Nor does Google News Archive [54]. There are seven articles in EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database which contain's seven articles all indicating that she is in a relationship with Gary Sweet. An article from the Sunday Herald Sun of 22 May 2005 states "They met on the set of Stingers, in which Nadia appeared briefly." Further, "But he's says life is good with Nadia, a marketing executive who used to work for Hockey Australia. She still plays in a team which Sweet manages." Worth a brief mention in the Gary Sweet article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. information changes too regularly and is inaccurate. Who cares who Nadia is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.235.14 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, being the partner of a notable actor is not notable in itself. Lankiveil 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
• Must delete, no relevence here. Is Gary Sweet even a celeb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.176 (talk • contribs) -- Longhair\^talk 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a not notable shop assistant, per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article. No place for shop attendents on Wikipedia.
• Delete Shop attendent doesn't mean she is a celeb. Google search on gives back reference to wikipedia, and other infromation taken from this link. Delete ASAP.
• As the main contributor of this site, please delete, it was created for publicity reasons for Nadia and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Delete. User:GSmgmt
• Delete. non-notable. --Roisterer 12:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Article should be Deleted and searches should be refered to Gary Sweet. GSmgmt 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)GSmgmt

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 There seems to be no support for deletion of this jazz singer from the 1920's. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelma Terry

• Keep - subject is cited as important in the development of women in jazz, and that's just in the current article. Eludium-q36 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP and send to CLEANUP Great subject. Indications that good reference material can be had with small effort. Enriches the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Needs sources, cleanup and better writing, but can be a really great article. OfficeGirl 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Why was this sent to AfD in the first place? Wildthing61476 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm working on this, adding sources and editing. Please wait to evaluate after my edit. --Charlene 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you figure out what in the sam hill that man's photo was doing on the article (see early edits) please let me know on the article's talk page. Strange mystery to me. OfficeGirl 00:44, 3 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 - Yomangani^talk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wookieepedia

Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment sorry, but I don't see how that outcome is relavent to Wookieepedia - they are rather unrelated.--Konst.able^Talk 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They are both Wikipedias, and WoWWiki was removed due to WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V, which this article also fails. Havok (T/C/c) 09:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain and comment I closed the WoWWiki AfD, but I said nothing about it setting a precedent for all other fan wikis, and in fact I did say that each one should be considered individually. As you very vocally wanted WoWWiki to be kept, I cannot help but wonder if you are just doing this because you weren't able to get what you wanted there (also your Lostpedia nomination, and your deletion "vote" WikiFur nomination).--Konst.able^Talk 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would think that you as an admin would know WP:AGF. Am I not allowed to change my mind since I voted keep on the WoWWiki AfD? I have voted keep on many articles on Wikipedia, I have also nominated articles for deletion and voted delete before. I have also "improved" my way of thinking since I started contributing to Wikipedia, my contributions are not as they where back then. Take my nomination as you see fit, but my reason for nominating them is valid in my eyes, if you don't see it that way, that's your prerogative and also the reason we are having this discussion. Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I think you're just trying to make a point here by using one AFD to nominate a bunch of other wikis for deletion, especially seeing as Lostpedia was speedy kept because you nominated the day after the original AFD closed. Hbdragon88 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wookieepedia is a much more notable wiki. In addition to being one of Wikia's most popular, extensive, and active wikis, it has been mentioned in multiple news sources. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are many articles already relating to Star Wars and it's characters. This particular article is nothing more than a fandom/nerd convention, and as such has no place on a respected encyclopedia/dictionary such as this! I would suggest the article has its own web page.

The Equaliser 11:17 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wookieepedia is notable. WoWWiki isn't. --JimmyTheWig 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Biased keep: Wookieepedia's been through one AFD with a "Speedy keep" result, and Lostpedia's recently been undeleted, so Wikipedia clearly allows articles on notable fansite wikis. Are the policies being applied arbitrarily and inconsistently? Maybe, but nominating pages for deletion because you're unhappy about a similar page being deleted probably isn't the best way to go about fixing the policy. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please assume good faith. I have given my reason for nominating this article, so you vote and discuss. Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize for assuming that was your motive: it was explicitly stated to be the motive by the last person to list Wookieepedia on AfD, which is why I jumped to conclusions. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I do understand that it can be seen as a act of "revenge", but in all honesty I still think a simple list of these Wiki's would suffice. Havok (T/C/c) 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it DOES meet WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V. I'm actually rather disappointed in Havok for nominating this. It becomes very, very hard to assume good faith when your reason for nominating this makes no sense whatsoever. "I deleted an article on a non-notable politician from Ghana who didn't meet WP standards, so I might as well do the same to George Washington!" --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment On your user page you wrote 'Claiming that something is not notable is in effect contradictory. If someone notes that something is actually there, it makes that thing notable. And as such Wikipedia:Notability is the silliest guideline Wikipedia has.'. So isn't using WP:NN a touch hypocritical?--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please everybody, discuss the issue, not the people. Though in this case, it's important to remember that the issue is merely this article, not the greater issue of which Wiki to keep. If you want to handle that, I suggest going to WP:WEB and working on a consensus there. FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wookieepedia is one of the largest wikipdia projects BS Guus 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wookieepedia is not a Wikipedia or Wikimedia project: it's hosted by Wikia. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wookiepedia definitely meet the WP:NN criteria. Been voted on before. Get over it.~ Brother William 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Uber Strong Keep For one, I use and look at Wookieepedia every day. I am using it to help write a book. Star Wars is now a part of culture, and has millions of followers all over the world, so why delete its Wiki? its rather acurate and true. plus, what harm could be in leaving it? Very Very Strong Keep.~MasterRogue 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wookiepedia won't be deleted by this proposal, merely its article on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if for no other reason than the bad faith nom of a user pushing a WP:POINT. I do not buy the sudden change in heart. Resolute 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Star Wars. Sorry, but it fails WP:WEB. Anomo 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not notable. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- SFH 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be pushing WP:POINT. StarNeptune 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per The Wookieepedian. If this site does not meet WP:WEB then it is our guidelines that are failing us, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 04:45, 4 November 2006
• Keep. I don't see how this fails WP:WEB. I've never used WP:POINT in a discussion before, but my good faith is really being stretched on this one. BryanG^(talk) 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per "I've had to explain tons of times that AfDs don't create strong precedents". The nomination fails to explain why WoWWiki's case is relevant in this case. From a cursory glance, Wookieepedia appears to satisfy WP:WEB with flying colours. I'm not calling this a bad faith nom or anything, just pointing out that "this one was kept/deleted too" is not a deletion/keeping reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'd vote keep, but as a Wookieepedia admin, I think my vote would be biased. Besides, it has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted anyway. - Sikon 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wookiepedia is an important resource for the Star Wars community, and the wiki size and popularity should indicate that it has high degree of notability. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Highly popular wiki, thats won awards in the past. --217.65.158.118 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep, seems fairly notable. -MrFizyx 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems fairly notable. We wouldn't delete Wikipedia's article now would we? Spawn Man 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wookieepedian, wwwwolf. MikeWazowski 14:51, 8 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 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism and Hinduism

Reason Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Delete, this article has too much original work WP:OR, the entire section from Siddhartha to idol worship is UNSOURCED ORIGINAL WORK....the rest is grossly POV, although POV is not a criteria for deletion. But it will be tagged as such.--Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly in violation of WIKIPEDIA OFFICIAL POLICYWP:OR:

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.--Green23 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many sources in the article. Also Hinduism and Buddhism share a long history, each borrowing from the other. It is of interest to note the similarities of belief and practice as well as the differences. Also please refer to Jainism and Hinduism, Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006. Sfacets 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite. Addhoc 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic language is required. I intended to get to it today though. The citations include sacred Buddhist canonical texts, world renowed authorities and Microsoft Encarta, to name a few. They're as good as anything you're likely to find on Wikipedia. The only one disputing the article is User:Green23, who has a history of vandalism prior to this article (see here) Freedom skies 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be improved, but it already provides some useful information and references. Stammer 17:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the nomination reason is a good reason to cleanup and remove unsourced WP:OR, but I don't think deletion is warrented. A discussion about Buddhism and Hinduism together can be a good article, it just needs a massive rewrite.--Isotope23 17:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very important and notable topic in comparative religion. Those knowledgable and interested can continue to improve the article by editing. Edison 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Undeniable truth that Buddhism and Sikhism are Dharmic religions and connected to Hinduism in the same way that Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions and connected to Judaism.The details can be hashed out.Bad faith nom ("Nevertheless, the article will be tagged as such?????").Hkelkar 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Relationships between Buddhism and Hinduism.--TBCΦtalk? 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Islam and Christianity, etc. Bad faith nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism cannot be denied, especially when Gautam Buddha himself was a Khshatriya Hindu. Syiem 06:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Though this may not be a bad faith move by the sponsor, effects of cultures and religion in areas they intreact are often found.Article needs to be cleaned of [WP:OR] contributions that do not stand on reliable sources or who draw on sources that may not objectively study the topic (overly religious -nationalistic) sites.TerryJ-Ho 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment : Despite the User:Green23's bad faith nomination and acts of mindless, incessent vandalism I have cleaned up the article, used enclyclopedic language and provided more citations. The only task remaining is to check the article for repeated internal links, which I plan to get to ASAP. I hope a decision according to the required norms will be reached. Freedom skies 08:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Rewrite searching comparisons section signed up for this, and find this... very dubious sources, poor historical analysis, facts are incorrect. POV. --Saavak123 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This was above users 5th edit, all of which were on Buddhism's relationships to other religions

Yes, Buddhism does have a comparison section right on the template, which is easier to edit all Buddhism sections... Your attempts to call people editing your edits "vandalism" has been reported. I research people thoroughly and have noted that you keep calling edits and dispute tags as vandalism in the History section.--Saavak123 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are sockpuppets of the same person. They have the same patterns (see here and here) and what's worse is that this person has started voting in AfD debates (You'll notice that the only two delete votes are given by Green23 and Savak123 here). This is in addition to them having the number 23 common in their ID and the same contribution patterns. Please protect the article from excessive abuse by a user who is charged of sockpuppetery and guilty of violent, incessent vandalism.

Freedom skies 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - interesting article, although it is important to keep standards high with regards to sources. --Deodar 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. However, the ridiculous edit warring going on from both sides needs to stop. ThuranX 19:06, 4 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 - Yomangani^talk 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Coulter

It's unclear that Lynn Coulter is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article yet. Furthermore, the article has at various times read like a resume or an advertisement. I have noted the issues on the talk page previously but there still seem to be problems. The primary author may be Lynn Coulter herself, editing via a user name and an IP account. A. B. 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The book has multiple reviews from reliable and independent sources, and is published by a reputable publisher, the University of North Carolina Press. I added the ISBN. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.. The sheer number of reviews cited reads like something you put on the back cover of your book, in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. This author does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I know too many people who have books through university presses. I wrote a book published by a larger publisher than that, but my bio does not deserve an article in Wikipeida. Also, because the article does not cite sources, it does read somewhat like an ad or the author's personal bio. The author may be totally innocent, but the way it's written comes across as something she, her publicist, or a meatpuppet wrote, not quite as an encyclopedic entry. The book itself might be worthy of a WikiBooks entry, but the author is not. Doczilla 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral. Although I still question the notability, I can't see any harm in leaving this stub now that it's not a soapbox. The article may need monitoring. Whoever turned it into an ad once can do so again. Doczilla 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • University presses publish a lot of scholarly books that are important but have limited press runs. Some also publish books for a broader market that they intend to make money on, as is the case here. I mentioned the name of the publisher mostly to show that it isn't a vanity press -- this is a book that both the author and the publisher will be making money on. The reviews themselves are sources, I think. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is still a résumé, although a much longer one than before; it isn't an encyclopedia article. It is conceivable that an encyclopedia article about Lynn Coulter could be written, if someone cares to put in the effort: so far, no one has. (Incidentally, the longest quote is copyrighted, and therefore needs to be deleted.) Andrew Dalby 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quoting an excerpt from a review is fair use. Almost all book reviews are copyright; including the copyright notice or an excerpt doesn't make it any more or less copyright. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course, if it is an excerpt, there's no problem: just do a bit of editing and delete the word "Copyright". I raised the issue because I had the impression that this was the whole review. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN bio/resume. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to everyone that's commented pro and con so far. It looks like there are two issues -- notability, then the article itself. Right now there's no consensus yet one way or the other. Should a consensus to delete fail to emerge, I strongly believe this article should be cut way back to an encyclopedic stub free of WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OR, etc. Ms. Coulter (or preferably others) could then build it back one encyclopedic, non-vanity sentence at a time. I don't sense much appetite on anyone else's part to try to rework the big article for compliance. --A. B. 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll be glad to try when I'm at a terminal that can easily handle a massive restructuring, it actually won't be too difficult. I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If you rewrite, it, Jeff, I'll vote to keep. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • "I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing" <-- that sounds so very much like me! I suggest we vote on the article as it is during the AfD, not based on our hopes. If Jeff gets to it during that time, then we can evaluate the article with his edits. Otherwise, we evaluate it as is. That puts Jeff under less pressure. Having said this, my own personal opinion remains that the article article merits deletion on grounds of notability; if that's the case, then not even Jeff can fix it. If, however, the consensus is that Lynn Coulter is notable, then the article is worth preserving as a neutral stub until Jeff recreates it.--A. B. 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. As things stand, I stick with my Delete vote given above. Andrew Dalby 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - rewritten. It still needs work, but it's a viable stub now and doesn't read like a resume. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done, Jeff. A real transformation. After all that work, better keep it. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten; sufficient notability established in the article. Kudos to Jeff. -Kubigula (ave) 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mukadderat 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - she's clearly not a notable person --SandyDancer 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article as rewritten, notability is now sufficiently established. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 4 November 2006
• Keep. If she is best known for a book which ranks 78,460, she can't be all that notable. However, she does appear to fulfill the basic criterion in WP:BIO for having received two, probably more, independently published reviews from reputable non-commercial sources, so I guess it's an obligatory "keep". Ohconfucius 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Although my standard usually allow me to vote for people who have written at least 1 book, the article is kinda like a vainity article... Probably not notable yet, but she's published, so I'll have to say keep... Spawn Man 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - rewrite isn't a resumé, but it still doesn't assert notability. —Angr 09:07, 8 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 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy Council

non-notable student group Cornell Rockey 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep. notable student group. Mukadderat 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It is a subnational student federation rather than a state-wide or local one. Such groups tend to have lots of notable alumni. See the references for media coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• As some one who has participated in this group, I will tell you: its freaking useless, no matter who the alumni are. Cornell Rockey 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Seems even half notable & well presented... Spawn Man 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though it's unfortunate that Mr. Rockey did not enjoy his experience, one participant's unpleasent experience does not warrant a removal. If there are factual edits, please make them to the article. Echo comments re reference for media coverage. Primary author comments. Mjh40 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I said it was useless. you didn't deny it. Cornell Rockey 17:12, 9 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 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMCO Sports Personality Of The Year

Contested prod. Completely non-notable event made up by some friends. Zero G hits other than Wikipedia. Fang Aili ^talk 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Ghits for "Sports Personality Of The Year" largely go to the BBC award of the same name. Tourism site in "External links" section makes no mention of the tourney. NN & fails WP:V. Caknuck 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school. The page is only notable to the individuals participating in the "events". Rather than using up Wikipedia's webspace, the participants should investigate free web hosting alternatives. -bobby 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Sporty Delete - Living in Retford (where the article suggests the event take place), I have never heard or seen the event advertised or take place. A Retford Times website search comes up with nothing. The events stated in the article have never happened. This is pure violation of WP:HOAX and WP:NOT. As a side note, AMCO is a bathroom retailer [55] in the town. And one last thing:

I haven't won the title - that alone makes it worthy for AfD! --tgheretford (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have sent an email to AMCO to see whether they have any affiliation with the event. --tgheretford (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sad delete - I agree with all of the above, but alas, the tournament sounds like fun & keeping it would only allow a vanished dream to but echoe in my exsistance.... *Cry*... Spawn Man 04:21, 8 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.